VOU  XXV 


JUNE.  1914 


NO.  2 


IRecorbs 


o(  tbe 


§i#t0tical  &0cuU) 


of 


hilaMpftm 


WITH  WHICH  IS  COMBINED 

AMERICAN  CATHOLIC  HISTORICAL  RESEARCHES 


PublisHed   Quarterly  by  tHe  Society 

715  Spruce  Street,  Philadelphia 

Copyrighted,  1913 

$2.00  PER  YEAR  SINGLE  NUMBER,  50  CENTS 


f 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PACE 

The  Air  of  the  "Star  Spangled  Banner" 97 

A  Reply  by  W.  H.  Grattan  Flood,  Enniscorthy,  Ireland. 
Rejoinder  by  the  Rev.  H.  T.  Henry,  Litt.D.,  Overbrook  Sem- 
inary, Pa. 

The  Life  of  Bishop  Conwell.    Continued 146 

By  Martin  I.  J.  Griffin;  revised  and  Edited  by  the  Rev.  Lem- 
uel B.  Norton. 
The  Reverend  Henry  G.  Ganss,  Mus.D.    Biographical  Sketch  by 

1  L.  A.  D.    With  Portrait 179 

1         Items  Trans-Atlantic 183 

J         Journal  of  the  American  Irish  Historical  Society 192 

F44 

fed 


Records  of  the 
American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

Vol.  XXIV  June,  1914  No.  2 

THE  AIR  OF  "THE  STAR  SPANGLED  BANNER" 


A  REPLY  J\ 

■»UaM  Ueuvu  GvaHaN    - 
I  have  carefully  read  the  long  article  on  the  above  subject 

from  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Henry,  but  I  am  not  con- 
vinced in  the  least.  The  article  runs  to  more  than  45  pages, 
and  I  fear  I  must  class  it  with  the  comment  of  Waller  on 
Milton's  Paradise  Lost,  so  aptly  quoted  by  Dr.  Henry :  "  If 
its  length  be  not  a  merit,  it  hath  no  other."  It  is  not  my 
intention  to  spread  myself  out,  and  I  shall  not  occupy  even 
a  sixth  of  the  space  given  to  Dr.  Henry's  article,  but  I  wish 
to  take  up  his  points  seriatim,  and  deal  briefly  with  them. 

To  begin  with,  it  is  gratifying  that  Dr.  Henry  will  not 
deny  an  Irish  origin  to  the  tune.  Even  this  is  a  concession 
for  which  the  advocates  of  the  Irish  provenance  of  the  air 
must  feel  duly  thankful.     And  now  for  a  short  reply. 

1.  As  regards  "expert  opinion",  I  hold  by  the  Irish 
origin.  The  opinion  with  which  I  am  credited,  in  the  quo- 
tation from  Church  Music,  is  that  of  Dr.  W.  H.  Cummings, 
and  not  mine.  The  absence  of  quotation  marks  leads  to  a 
wrong  inference,  as  I  quoted  the  words  of  my  friend,  taken 
from  a  letter.     And,  let  me  add,  Dr.  Cummings  was  at 


98  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

fault.  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  Mr.  Sonneck  in  his 
Report  (p.  20)  also  endeavors  to  discredit  my  reference 
to  Dr.  Cummings,  but  I  have  the  letter  before  me  as  I  write. 
Mr.  Sonneck  also  without  reservation  (p.  27)  quotes  the 
air  as  by  John  Stafford  Smith. 

2.  The  Irish  origin  of  the  words  of  "Anacreon  "  is  evi- 
dent from  even  a  cursory  examination  of  the  phrases: 
"  lend  ye  ",  "  inspire  ye  ",  "  the  devil  a  goddess  ",  "  risible 
fiz  ",  etc. 

3.  The  characteristics  of  the  tune  are  Irish,  and  point  to 
O'Carolan.  My  quotation  from  Dr.  Cummings  refers  to 
the  air  being  reminiscent  of  Dr.  Boyce,  which  Dr.  Cummings 
really  believed.  My  own  opinion  is  that  the  air  is  by 
O'Carolan,  and  I  leave  it  to  experts  to  study  O'Carolan's 
many  compositions  in  order  to  corroborate  my  opinion. 
Incidentally  Dr.  Henry  waxes  merry  over  my  previous 
identification  of  the  Irish  origin  of  "  Yankee  Doodle  ",  but 
my  identification  has  been  upheld  by  some  of  the  ablest 
musical  critics,  and  the  Irish  origin  of  the  tune  of  "  Yankee 
Doodle  "  is  now  an  established  fact. 

4.  It  is  distinctly  uncritical  to  compare  "Anacreon  "  and 
"  Bumpers,  Squire  Jones  "  bar  by  bar,  for  even  a  tyro  at 
tuneology  (to  coin  a  word)  would  be  hopelessly  muddled 
in  endeavoring  to  trace  variants.  I  myself  have  analyzed 
some  twenty  variants  of  one  particular  Irish  melody,  and 
each  of  these  variants  though  of  common  origin  presents 
notable  bar  differences,  yet  the  tune  is  really  the  same.  Let 
me  assure  Dr.  Henry  that  the  general  structure  and  the 
slightly  abnormal  range  of  the  melody  of  "Anacreon  "  are 
on  all  fours  with  that  of  "  The  Princess  Royal  ",  "  Bumpers, 
Squire  Jones  ",  "  Rodney's  Glory  ",  and  other  magnificent 
compositions  of  O'Carolan.  I  may  also  add  that  the  earliest 
title  of  the  song  "  Bumpers,  Squire  Jones  "  was  as  here 
given,  not  "  Bumpers  Esquire  Jones  ",  as  Dr.  Henry  gives 
it.     I  fail  to  trace  the  remotest  similarity  between  this  air 


The  Air  of  "The  Star  Spangled  Banner"  99 

and  the  "Virginia  Reel"  (the  Irish  Washerwoman)  as 
suggested  by  Dr.  Henry :  in  fact  there  is  a  much  greater 
resemblance  between  it  and  a  jig  tune  (not  a  Reel)  known 
as  "The  Top  of  Cork  Road"  (Father  O'Flynn).  Dr. 
Henry  has  fallen  into  a  trap  by  following  Captain  O'Neill's 
Irish  Folk  Music  when  he  dates  Burke  Thumoth's  Col- 
lection as  1720,  and  styles  it  "  the  first  collection  of  Irish 
Airs."  Both  statements  are  wrong.  The  date  of  Burke 
Thumoth's  volume  was  1743,  and  Neale  of  Dublin  had 
published  an  Irish  Collection  in  1726.  Nor  does  Dr.  Henry 
appear  to  be  aware  that  the  tune  was  printed  in  O'Carolan's 
Collection  in  1747,  and  reprinted  by  John  Lee  in  January 
1779,  not  1780. 

5.  The  "  Ratio  Convenientiae  "  argument  is  worthless. 
Hullah  is  no  authority  to  quote  nowadays,  and  even  Chap- 
pell,  the  great  protagonist  of  English  Music,  has  been  dis- 
credited in  dozens  of  cases,  notably  by  the  late  Mr.  John 
Glen.  But  I  do  not  shirk  the  six  instances  quoted  by 
Dr.  Henry.     Here  they  are : 

(a)  "  The  Girl  I  left  behind  me  "  is  not  an  English  air: 
it  is  certainly  Irish,  and  has  been  proved  so  up  to  the  hilt. 
For  proof  see  the  Musical  Times  for  191 3. 

(b)  "  My  lodging  is  on  the  cold  ground  ",  far  from  be- 
ing of  "undoubted  English  origin",  was  printed  as  "a  favor- 
ite Irish  air  ",  as  far  back  as  1780;  a  fact  of  which  Chap- 
pell  and  Hullah  and  his  copyists  were  unaware. 

(c)  "  Shepherds  I  have  lost  my  love  ",  claimed  as  of 
"  English  origin",  was  printed  as  an  Irish  air  in  1714,  set 
to  phonetic  Irish  words,  while  the  English  words  were  set 
to  the  air  by  an  Irishman,  George  Ogle,  in  1760.  It  was 
also  printed  as  an  Irish  air  by  Daniel  Wright  in  1727;  but 
neither  Chappell  nor  Hullah  was  acquainted  with  these 
facts. 

(d)  "  O  could  we  do  with  this  world  of  ours  "  is  also 
claimed  as  "  a  favorite  tune  from  the  time  of  Elizabeth." 


ioo  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

The  air  is  given  by  Tom  Moore  as  "  Basket  of  Oysters  ". 
In  1778  it  was  printed  as  an  Irish  air  under  the  title  of 
"  The  Basket  of  Oysters  or  Paddy  the  Weaver  ",  and  was 
previously  included  in  an  Irish  collection  of  1750.  Earlier 
still  in  the  seventeenth  century  it  was  known  in  Ireland  as 
"  An  Rogari  dubh  "  (the  Black  Rogue). 

(e)  After  all  that  has  been  written  on  the  Irish  origin 
of  the  well-known  "  Cruiscin  Ian  "  (vulgarly  "  The  Cruis- 
keen  lawn  ")  it  is  unscholarly  to  trot  out  Hullah's  vagaries. 
The  so-called  "  Danish  "  air,  also  claimed  as  English  and 
Scotch,  is  as  Irish  as  the  Hill  of  Howth.  Neither  Chappell 
nor  Hullah  was  aware  that  the  air  was  printed  by  an  Irish 
dramatist  in  1729,  nor  did  they  advert  to  the  fact  that  our 
Irish  air  was  introduced  into  Denmark  by  the  Irish  harpers 
at  the  Danish  Court.  Incidentally,  I  may  be  pardoned  for 
mentioning  that  three  Irish  harpers  in  succession  were 
Harpers  to  the  Danish  Court  from  1601  to  1634,  a  fact 
which  I  owe  to  the  courtesy  of  my  frined  Dr.  Angul  Ham- 
merich,  of  the  University  of  Copenhagen. 

(f)  "Rich  and  Rare"  has  been  sufficiently  discussed, 
and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  it  is  the  original  melody 
brought  over  by  Irish  monks  to  England  and  hence  regarded 
as  "  English ".  It  is  too  frequently  forgotten  that  the 
monasteries  of  Malmesbury  and  Glastonbury  were  Irish, 
and  it  is  also  certain  that  St.  Aldhelm  and  St.  Dunstan  were 
taught  by  Irish  monks. 

And  now  having  disposed  of  these  six  "  ascriptions  of 
tunes  ",  I  hope  that  Dr.  Henry  will  be  more  cautious  in 
future  in  quoting  at  second-hand  from  either  Chappell  or 
Hullah,  although  he  is  good  enough  to  describe  Hullah  as 
"  an  acceptable  source  ".  The  "  mutual  borrowings  "  may 
be  hard  to  unearth,  but  as  a  rule  it  is  the  English  and  the 
Scotch  who  are  the  guilty  parties.  Ireland  never  had  any 
reason  to  borrow  melodies  from  any  country.  She  has  al- 
ways stood,  and,  please  God,  always  will  stand  as  "  the  land 


The  Air  of  "The  Star  Spangled  Banner"         101 

of  song  ",  and  "  the  island  of  saints  and  scholars  ".  Of 
course,  at  the  same  time,  I  do  not  wish  to  minimize  the  ef- 
forts of  Dr.  Henry,  who  assures  his  readers  that  he  makes 
his  statements  "  with  equal  confidence,  and  from  an  equally 
acceptable  source,  with  those  of  Dr.  Flood  ". 

I  shall  not  waste  any  time  in  discussing  Dr.  Henry's 
"  negative  argument  ".  Let  me  finish  by  briefly  answering 
his  four  points. 

i.  The  date  of  the  copyright  of  the  Anacreontic  Song 
arranged  as  a  Glee  is  8  May,  1799.  Dr.  Henry  quotes  Mr. 
Sonneck's  Report  for  the  publication  of  the  song,  but  he 
omits  the  Rhames  copy  of  circa  1778,  and  he  omits  the 
musical  setting  in  the  Perth  Musical  Miscellany  of  1786 
(now  before  me)  as  well  as  a  Dublin  printed  music  score  of 
1 79 1.  Mr.  Sonneck's  "cautious  attitude  towards  the  pre- 
vailing ascription  of  the  tune  to  Smith  "  is  not  borne  out 
by  the  Report. 

2.  Smith  arranged  the  Air  as  a  Glee.  Yes !  he  arranged 
it,  and  that  was  about  all  he  did  with  it,  and  that  badly 
enough.  I  take  "  harmonized  by  the  Author  "  simply  at  its 
face  value,  that  is  to  say,  Smith,  the  author  or  editor  of  the 
Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets,  etc.,  arranged  the  melody  as  a 
glee ;  but  it  does  not  imply  that  he  composed  the  song  tune. 
And  let  me  add  that  without  further  proof  the  title  page 
shows  that  Smith's  compilation  could  not  have  been  prior 
to  the  year  1785,  for  he  describes  himself  as  "  Gent,  of 
His  Majesty's  Chapels  Royal  ",  a  post  that  he  only  got  on 
December  16th,  1784.  Of  course  the  actual  date  of  pub- 
lication, as  Mr.  Blake  discovered,  was  8  May,  1799. 

3.  "  Smith  never  claimed  the  tune  as  his."  He  did  not, 
for  the  best  of  reasons.  During  his  long  life  this  British 
musician  never  publicly  owned  the  claim :  and  he  allowed  it 
to  be  printed  by  the  thousand  for  forty  years  without  once 
admitting  his  claim!  Very  like  a  Britisher!  On  May  8, 
1799,  he  merely  published  a  volume,  with  the  melody  ar- 


102  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

ranged  in  glee  form ;  not  a  word  as  to  being  the  composer. 
If  Dr.  Henry  is  logical  in  assuming  that  Smith  meant  to 
pose  as  composer  of  the  tune,  he  must  also  admit  that  Smith 
composed  "  God  Save  the  King  ".  The  cases  are  quite 
parallel.  In  one  case  Smith  arranged  a  tune  as  a  Glee,  and 
in  the  other  he  arranged  a  tune  as  Canon  in  Subdiapente. 
And  let  me  add  that  "  dear  old  Smith  "  (if  I  may  be  per- 
mitted to  quote  from  Mr.  Sonneck's  lucid  letter)  in  both 
cases  was  merely  an  arranger  of  melodies  long  before  his 
time.  In  short,  the  argument  for  the  ascription  of  "Ana- 
creon  "  to  Smith  is  miserably  weak  and  will  not  stand  in- 
vestigation. 

4.  The  authorship  of  the  words  is  most  likely  of  Irish 
origin.  If  Dr.  Henry,  or  any  one  else,  can  substantiate 
Ralph  Tomlinson's  claim  as  original  author  then  I  apologize. 
Mr.  Warrington  merely  relies  on  Dr.  Cummings,  but  Dr. 
Cummings  told  me  a  different  story,  and  so  the  matter  rests. 
I  have  already  noted  some  of  the  "  Irishisms  "  in  the  song. 

W.  H.  Grattan  Flood. 


A  BRIEF  REJOINDER  ^ 

1.  Dr.  Flood,  if  quoting  from  Dr.  Cummings,  should 
have  used  quotation-marks.  He  nowhere  gave  a  "  refer- 
ence "  to  Cummings  as  authority  for  his  statements.  But 
Dr.  Flood  did,  in  1909,  believe  Smith  to  be  the  composer, 
for  he  then  wrote  in  Church  Music :  "  .  .  .  I  also  examined 
the  copy  containing  the  information  that  the  music  was 
composed  by  John  Stafford  Smith."  (Italics  mine).  It  is 
clear  that,  in  1909,  Dr.  Flood  held  "  author "  to  mean 
"composer"  (in  Smith's  phrase,  "harmonized  by  the 
author"). 

2.  Dr.  Flood's  assertion  is  amazingly  reckless.  The 
argument  is  worthless,  for  the  quoted  expressions  are  not 
at  all  peculiarly  Irish.  I  show  this  in  my  fuller  rejoinder 
by  quoting  Milton,  Shakespeare,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
Urquhart,  N.  Bailey,  etc.,  etc. 

3.  Dr.  Flood  should  have  placed  quotation-marks  when 
quoting  from  Dr.  Cummings. 

4.  In  his  article,  Dr.  Flood  said  that  "Anacreon  "  had 
"  all  "  the  characteristics  of  "  Bumper  ",  but  failed  to  in- 
stance a  single  one.  I  printed  both  melodies  side  by  side  to 
show  that  they  differed,  not  merely  bar  for  bar,  but  also  in 
(1)  beginning,  (2)  ending,  (3)  rhythm,  (4)  length,  (5) 
phrasing,  (6)  melodic  progressions,  (7)  spirit.  Dr.  Flood's 
present  argument  based  on  musical  structure  and  range  is 
futile,  as  my  fuller  rejoinder  shows.  And  Dr.  Flood  is 
wrong  in  respect  of  O'Neill,  who  gives  1742  and  1745  as 
the  dates  of  two  of  Thumoth's  volumes.  I  would  also 
trust  O'Neill  for  the  other  date  of  1780. 


104  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

5.  I  merely  pitted  ascription  against  ascription — Chappeli 
and  Hullah  against  Dr.  Flood;  and  I  expressly  declined  to 
discuss  the  objective  value  of  any  of  the  ascriptions.  But 
Dr.  Flood  does  "  spread  "  himself  in  the  quagmire  of  as- 
criptions, and  misleads  by  using  the  word  "  shirk  ".  He 
also  is  wrong  about  the  "  statements  ",  for  it  was  Hullah, 
and  not  I,  who  made  the  "  statements  ".  Also,  one  needs 
no  caution  in  quoting  at  second-hand,  if  only  one  makes  it 
clear  that  he  is  doing  so.  I  made  this  clear  by  elaborately 
correct  quotation-marks.  Would  that  Dr.  Flood  had  been 
equally  correct  in  quoting  from  Dr.  Cummings !  I  quoted 
at  first-hand  from  Hullah,  whose  volume  apparently  has 
never  been  seen  by  Dr.  Flood. 

1.  I  did  not  "omit"  anything,  as  I  professedly  quoted 
from  Sonneck,  who  did  not  include  the  Rhames  copy,  etc. 

2,  3.  Dr.  Flood  writes  so  carelessly  that  even  an  Aristotle 
might  (wrongly)  infer  that  I  had  fathered  the  quoted  head- 
ings. My  article  shows  that  they  were  based  on  that  of 
Dr.  Flood. 

4.  In  1909,  Dr.  Flood  wrote  in  Church  Music:  "  There  is 
no  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that  Ralph  Tomlinson  wrote  the 
song  in  the  winter  of  1770".  He  now  challenges  me,  or 
any  one  else,  to  prove  that  Tomlinson  wrote  it.  Gentle 
reader,  can  you  make  anything  out  of  this  beautiful  muddle? 

H.  T.  Henry. 


A  FULLER  REJOINDER  TO  DR.  FLOOD'S  "REPLY" 

Uu  y  U  T  W,  !V\  a  S>  Wn  r  u 

There  are  two  interesting  points  in  Dr.  Flood's  Reply- 
In  both  of  these  he  offers  some  argument  for  two  most  im- 
portant assertions  which  he  had  made  in  the  Ave  Maria 
article  but  for  which  he  had  not  vouchsafed  any  proof, 
argument,  citation  or  reference.  The  arguments  he  now 
brings  forward  should  properly  have  been  given  in  the 
Ave  Maria,  and  I  will  consider  them  forthwith,  because 
logically  they  belong  rather  to  his  original  article  than  to 
his  present  Reply. 

I.  Proofs  of  the  Irish  Origin  of  the  Text. 
The  section  of  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  which  he  marks  "  2  "" 
is  as  follows : 

The  Irish  origin  of  the  words  of  "Anacreon  "  is  evident 
from  even  a  cursory  examination  of  the  phrases :  "  lend 
ye  ",  "  inspire  ye  ",  "  the  devil  a  goddess  ",  "  risible  fiz  ",. 
etc. 

In  the  Ave  Maria  Dr.  Flood  had  stated,  without  any  at- 
tempt at  proof  or  argument,  that  the  words  of  "Anacreon  "" 
are  of  Irish  origin.  If  this  statement  were  correct,  it  would 
be  of  the  highest  importance,  as  I  showed  in  the  Records. 
Dr.  Flood  now  alleges  his  reason — not  for  considering  the 
words  as  probably  of  Irish  origin —  but  for  stating,  without 
any  qualification  or  hesitation,  that  they  are  of  Irish  origin. 
It  is  rather  amazing,  in  view  of  this  certainty  on  the  part 
of  Dr.  Flood,  that  he  should  appeal  only  to  internal  evi- 
dence ;  for  not  only  is  internal  evidence  a  risky  thing  to  de- 
pend wholly  upon,  but  in  Dr.  Flood's  hands  it  is  especially 
risky;  for,  as  I  have  abundantly  shown  in  the  Records,  he 


io6  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

is  quite  unfitted  to  deal  with  the  delicate  and  notably  in- 
conclusive "  higher  criticism  "  of  internal  evidence. 

But  now  let  us  tackle  this  internal  evidence  adduced  by 
Dr.  Flood.  From  a  poem  of  48  very  long  lines  he  ex- 
tracts four  instances,  and  follows  them  with  an  "  etc." 
This  "  etc."  would,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  include  but  one  other 
illustration,  namely,  the  phrase  "  instruct  ye  ".  Of  the  five 
illustrations  we  thus  have  before  us,  three  are  in  precisely 
the  same  category :  "  Lend  ye  ",  "  inspire  ye  ",  and  "  in- 
struct ye  ".  The  three  illustrations  are,  therefore,  logically 
but  one.  What  is  so  peculiarly  "  Irish  "  in  them  as  to  lead 
a  critic  of  internal  evidence  to  award  a  whole  poem  in  which 
they  occur  to  Ireland?  Was  John  Milton  an  Irishman? 
But  he  writes :  "  They  have,  like  your  good  sumpters,  laid 
ye  down  their  horse  load  of  citations  and  fathers  at  your 
dore  "  (Church  Government,  ii).  Was  Shakespeare  Irish? 
He  gives  us  this :  "  The  more  shame  for  ye,  holy  men  I 
thought  ye  "  (Henry  VIII,  Act  3,  sc.  1). 

The  same  scene  from  the  same  play  gives  us  these  further 
examples:  "But  how  to  make  ye  suddenly  an  answer", 
"  Out  upon  ye  ",  "  I  fear  ye  ",  "  a  woman  lost  among  ye  ", 
"  I  will  not  wish  ye  half  my  miseries  ",  "  I  warn 'd  ye  ", 
"  The  burden  of  my  sorrows  fall  upon  ye  ",  "  woe  upon 
ye  ".  Every  "  ye  "  here  is  a  plural  in  the  objective  case, 
precisely  as  every  "  ye  "  is  in  the  "Anacreon  "  song  from 
which  Dr.  Flood  extracts  his  examples  to  make  it  "  evi- 
dent "  that  the  words  of  "Anacreon  "  are  Irish! 

Milton,  also,  seems  to  prefer  "  ye  "  to  "  you  "  as  an  ob- 
jective case.  But  I  will  quote  only  one  more  instance  from 
him:  "I  call  ye,  and  declare  ye  now,  returned,  Successful 
beyond  hope,  to  lead  ye  forth,"  etc.      (Par.  Lost,  X.  462). 

The  next  illustration  cited  by  Dr.  Flood  is :  "  the  devil 
a  goddess".  Is  this  peculiarly  Irish?  The  line  in  which 
it  occurs  will  illustrate  its  use : 

"  The  devil  a  goddess  will  stay  above  stairs  " — 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  107 

meaning,  of  course,  that  not  one  of  the  goddesses  will  "  stay 
above  stairs"  (sc.  with  Anacreon,  in  Heaven).  But  this 
use  of  "  devil  "  as  an  expletive,  followed  by  the  indefinite 
article,  is  not  peculiarly  Irish.  It  occurs,  for  instance,  in 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  Coxcomb:  "The  devil  a  good 
word  will  she  give  a  servant,"  and  in  Digby's  Elvira : 
"  Why  then,  for  fear,  the  devil  a  bit  for  love,  I'll  tell  you, 
Sir."     And  there  is  the  well-known  couplet  from  Urquhart : 

The  devil  was  sick,  the  devil  a  monk  would  be ; 
The  devil  was  well,  the  devil  a  monk  was  he ! — 

in  which  there  is  a  play  on  the  word  devil. 

The  final  illustration  given  by  Dr.  Flood  is :  "  risible  fiz  ". 
Xow  the  word  "  risible  "  is  not  peculiarly  Irish,  and  the 
value  of  the  illustration  must  lie  in  the  word  "  fiz  "  or 
"  phiz  ".     The  words  occur  in  the  line  of  "  To  Anacreon  "  : 

Xext  Momus  got  up,  with  his  risible  phiz — 

that  is,  Momus  got  up,  with  his  laughing  (or  laughable) 
face,  etc.  Is  "  phiz "  peculiarly  Irish  for  "  face "  (or 
physiognomy)  ?  But  we  find  the  word  in  N.  Bailey's  trans- 
lation of  the  Colloquies  of  Erasmus:  "Why,  truly  a  Body 
would  think  so  by  thy  slovenly  Dress,  lean  Carcase,  and 
ghastly  Phyz."  Also,  in  Garner's  Love  at  First  Sight: 
"  the  phiz-maker."  If  Dr.  Flood  desires  more  English  il- 
lustration of  all  of  the  expressions  he  considers  peculiarly 
Irish,  I  will  furnish  them. 

I  have  taken  up  all  the  internal  evidence  alleged  by  Dr. 
Flood  as  making  wThat  he  styles  "  evident  ",  the  Irish  origin 
of  the  words  of  "  To  Anacreon ".  Quousque  tandem 
abutere,  Catilina,  patientia  nostra? 

2.  Proofs  that  O'Carolan  Composed  the  Tune. 

In  the  Ave  Maria  Dr.  Flood  had  contended  for 
O'Carolan's  authorship  of  the  tune,  alleging  that  "Ana- 
creon "  had  "  all  the  characteristics  "  of  a  certain  other 


io8  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

melody  by  O'Carolan.  Dr.  Flood  did  not  specify  even 
one  of  "  all  "  these  characteristics.  He  now  specifies  as 
follows  (in  his  section  "  4  ")  : 

Let  me  assure  Dr.  Henry  that  the  general  structure  and 
the  slightly  abnormal  range  of  the  melody  of  "Anacreon  " 
are  on  all  fours  with  that  of  "  The  Princess  Royal ", 
"  Bumpers,  Squire  Jones  ",  "  Rodney's  Glory  "  and  other 
magnificent  compositions  of  O'Carolan. 

Dr.  Flood  has  here  broadened  considerably  his  basis  of 
comparison.  In  the  Ave  Maria  he  had  specified  only  one 
of  the  magnificent  compositions,  namely,  "  Bumpers, 
Squire  Jones  ".  Let  us,  however,  pass  over  this  broaden- 
ing process,  and  consider  his  two  present  proofs :  (a)  "  gen- 
eral structure  ",  and  (b)  "  slightly  abnormal  range  of  the 
melody  of  'Anacreon  '  ". 

(a)  "  General  Structure  ". 
This  is  exceedingly  vague,  and  means,  practically,  that 
any  "  expert "  can  take  any  view  he  wishes  of  such  a  vague 
thing  as  "  structure  " — or,  better  still,  "  general  structure  ". 
So  true  is  this,  that  a  really  critical  authority  like  Mr. 
Sonneck,  who  is  Chief  of  the  Department  of  Music  in  the 
Library  of  Congress,  met  Dr.  Flood's  proof  for  the  Irish 
origin  of  "  Yankee  Doodle  "  (namely,  that  "  the  very  struc- 
ture of  this  tune  is  seen  to  be  decidedly  Irish,  and  apart  from 
any  other  argument  intrinsic  evidence  should  point  to  its 
Irish  origin")  by  simply  saying:  "Since  the  structure  of 
the  melody  has  been  claimed  with  equal  enthusiasm  as  de- 
cidedly Hessian,  Hungarian,  Scotch,  English,  etc. — indeed, 
in  his  letter  quoted  above,  Mr.  D.  F.  Scheurleer  called  my 
attention  to  the  similarity  of  '  Yankee  Doodle  '  with  the 
tunes  of  the  itinerant  Savoyards  —  Mr.  Grattan  Flood's 
manifestly  sincere  assertion  cannot  be  accepted  without 
very  careful  proof  as  'intrinsic  evidence'".  (See  Mr. 
Sonneck's  Report  to  Congress,  p.  146). 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  109 

Really,  Dr.  Flood  must  try  to  show  his  readers  the  points 
of  agreement  in  "  general  structure  ".  Then  his  readers 
will  have  something  definite  upon  which  to  work.  It  is  un- 
fortunately necessary  to  call  for  this  definite  argument;  for 
Dr.  Flood  argues  in  generalities,  and  where  he  is  forced  to 
come  down  to  any  specific  statements  (e.  g.,  as  to  the  proofs 
of  the  Irish  origin  of  the  words)  the  weakness — nay,  the 
absolute  baselessness — of  his  proofs  can  be  clearly  exhibited. 

And  now,  Dr.  Flood's  large  phrase — "  all  the  character- 
istics " — has  dwindled  to  a  single  "  characteristic  ",  namely, 
that  of  "  the  slightly  abnormal  range  of  the  melody  of 
'Anacreon '  ".  This  is,  at  least,  slightly  definite.  But 
"  Oh,  what  a  fall  was  there,  my  countrymen !"  From 
"  all  "  the  characteristics,  he  must  fall  down  to  this  scarcely 
measurable  thing — the  melodic  range  of  the  two  tunes. 
And  this  agreement  in  melodic  range  is  not  something 
startling,  withal ;  for  the  melodic  range  is,  he  tells  us,  only 
"  slightly  abnormal  " ! 

(b)  "  Slight  Abnormality  of  Range." 
How  shall  I  tackle  this  matter  of  "  slight  abnormality  "  ? 
Like  Hamlet,  I  feelthat  in  Dr.  Flood's  "proofs"  I  am 
reading  only  "  words,  words,  words  ".  But  let  me  place 
accurately  the  ranges  of  the  two  melodies,  and  then  place, 
for  comparison,  the  ranges  of  other  old  melodies  which  are 
not  by  O'Carolan. 

The  range  of  "Anacreon  "  is  a  twelfth;  of  "  Bumper", 
a  thirteenth.  The  two  melodies  do  not  agree  even  in  range. 
But,  argues  Dr.  Flood,  both  ranges  are  "slightly  abnormal", 
and  he  insinuates  that  this  slight  abnormality  is  peculiarly 
characteristic  of  O'Carolan's  melodies.     Is  it? 

Even  if  it  were — which  it  is  not — what  argument  can  be 
properly  deduced  therefrom?  Could  not  an  Englishman, 
familiar  with  the  airs  of  Dr.  Arne,  Dibdin,  and  the  "  natur- 
alized "  Handel,  have  imitated  their  "  slightly  abnormal 
range  "  of  melody? 


no  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

All  that  I  have  to  show  is  that-  old  melodies  not  by 
O'Carolan  present  us  with  an  equal  amount  of  "  slight 
abnormality."  But  I  make  my  argument  with  not  a  little 
trepidation ;  for  Dr.  Flood  will  doubtless  argue  that  all  the 
instances  I  shall  bring  forward  are  instances  of  O'Carolan's 
melodies  masquerading  as  of  English,  Scotch,  and  Welsh 
origin,  for  the  reason  that  both  their  "  general  structure  " 
and  their  "  slight  abnormality  "  of  range  prove  "  beyond  the 
shadow  of  doubt ",  that  they  are  "  unquestionably  "  by 
O'Carolan,  etc.  However,  I  must  chance  this  counter- 
demonstration,  and  go  ahead. 

I  must  first  premise  that  "Anacreon  "  has  a  range  of  a 
twelfth.  Now  is  it  not  curious  that  Dr.  Flood  should  have 
such  a  very  short  memory  as  already  to  have  forgotten  his 
comparison  (which  he  now  declares  that  he  borrowed  from 
Dr.  Cummings)  of  "Anacreon  "  with  the  song  "  Heart  of 
Oak"  by  the  English  composer,  Boyce?  One  fact  about 
both  melodies  is  that  the  range  of  both  is  just  exactly  a 
twelfth!  Should,  then,  the  "slight  abnormality"  of  a 
twelfth  be  considered  peculiar  to  O'Carolan?  Dr.  Flood's 
argument  ought  to  prove  that  Dr.  Boyce  wrote  the  air  of 
"Anacreon  " ! 

But  here  are  some  other  instances  of  old  English  songs 
ranging  up  to  a  twelfth :  "  Greenwich  Park  ",  "  Cease  your 
funning",  "Peaceful  slumbering  on  the  ocean"  (from 
Cobb's  opera,  The  Pirates),  "  Blind  Willie  singing  ".  And 
here  are  some  instances  of  old  Scotch  songs  indulging  in  a 
twelfth:  "The  Lass  of  Patie's  mill",  "  Lochaber  ",  "My 
Nanie,  O  ",  "  Tibbie  Towler  ",  "  Farewell  to  Ayr  ",  "  Dance 
to  your  daddy  ",  "  Whare  live  ye,  my  bonie  lass?",  "  Com- 
ing thro'  the  craigs  of  Kyle  ",  "  My  love  she's  but  a  lassie 
yet  ",  "  O  this  is  no  my  ain  lassie  ",  "Awa,  whigs,  awa!", 
"  The  flowers  of  the  forest  ".  To  this  list  should  be  added 
old  Scotch  songs  which  reach  even  a  thirteenth :  "  Jock  the 
laird's  brother",  "The  bush  above  Traquair",  "Locherroch 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  1 1 1 

side  ",  "  The  seventh  of  November  ".  And  here  are  Welsh 
songs  which  reach  a  twelfth:  "The  Camp",  "  The  Dawn 
of  Day  ". 

The  simple  truth  is  that  there  is  no  force  of  the  slightest 
kind  in  the  comparison  of  the  melodic  ranges  of  "Ana- 
creon  "  and  "  Bumper  " ;  for  the  "  slightly  abnormal  range  " 
is  not  exclusively  characteristic  of  O'Carolam  The  very 
air  ("  Shepherds,  I  have  lost  my  love")  which  Dr.  Flood 
claims  (section  "  5,  c  ")  to  be  an  Irish  one  printed  in  1714 
has  a  range  of  a  twelfth !  Also,  the  tune  of  Moore's  "  Oh ! 
could  we  do  with  this  world  of  ours  ",  which  Dr.  Flood 
claims  ("  5,  d  ")  to  have  been  known  in  Ireland  in  the 
17th  century,  has  a  range  of  a  thirteenth! 

Dr.  Flood  declared  that  "Anacreon  "  has  "  all  "  the  char- 
acteristics of  "  Bumper ".  When  forced  to  descend  to 
particulars,  he  cannot  given  even  one  which  will  bear  the 
test  of  careful  scrutiny. 

The  two  most  important  assertions  in  the  Ave  Maria 
were  there  unsupported  by  any  kind  of  argument  or  refer- 
ence. In  his  present  Reply,  Dr.  Flood  attempts  some  argu- 
ment. Under  investigation  it  is  found  to  be  absolutely 
worthless.  And  now  let  me  go  on  to  his  Reply  proper,  and 
make  my  Rejoinder  to  it. 

The  Rejoinder  Proper. 

Dr.  Flood  dislikes  the  length  of  my  article  and  very 
naturally  considers  ill-founded  the  trust  I  modestly  ex- 
pressed that  it  might  not  merit  Waller's  criticism  of  Para- 
dise Lost.  Dr.  Flood,  however,  appears  to  be  unconscious 
of  the  humor  of  the  situation;  for  he  links  himself  with 
Waller,  while  the  world  at  large  appreciates  Milton's  very, 
very  long  poem  rather  highly. 

Dr.  Flood  affects  brevity,  but  fails  to  achieve  accuracy. 
He  should  also  reflect  that  brevity  does  not  necessarily  ex- 
clude tediousness,  as  Philostrate  takes  the  trouble  to  demon- 
strate to  Theseus,  in  Shakespeare's  play : 


H2  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

A  play  there  is,  my  lord,  some  ten  words  long, 
Which  is  as  brief  as  I  have  known  a  play; 
But  by  ten  words,  my  lord,  it  is  too  long, 
Which  makes  it  tedious ;  for  in  all  the  play 
There  is  not  one  word  apt.  .  .  . 

The  "  Reply"  of  Dr.  Flood  is  similarly  tedious;  for  in 
it,  despite  its  brevity,  there  is  not  one  word  apt.  The 
length  of  my  article  permitted  me  to  be  accurate,  and  now 
gives  me  the  opportunity  to  be  relatively  brief  in  my  analysis 
of  the  "  Reply  "  to  it. 

Will  my  readers  kindly  remember  that  Dr.  Flood's  "  Re- 
ply "  is  made  to  my  article  in  the  Records  for  December, 
1913?  Wherever  he  wanders  outside  of  the  limits  of  that 
article  (e.  g.,  where  he  attacks  Mr.  Sonneck's  Report  to 
Congress,  or  dissents  from  the  opinions  of  Dr.  Cummings, 
or  imports  bits  of  irrelevant  information)  I  am  not  called 
upon  to  follow  him,  howsoever  he  may  draw  the  herring 
across  the  trail.  For  Dr.  Flood  is  brief,  but  not  at  all 
concise. 

Wherever  I  refer,  in  this  present  "  Rejoinder  ",  to  the 
Records,  my  readers  will  understand  that  I  refer  to  my 
article  in  the  December  issue,  19 13. 

In  making  my  rejoinder,  two  methods  are  open  to  me. 
First,  I  might  take  Dr.  Flood's  assertions  one  by  one,  and 
patiently  dissect  and  disprove  them.  This  method  would 
inevitably  require  much  space  and  appear  to  justify  the  re- 
proach that  I  am  not  brief.  A  worse  result  than  this  would 
be,  however,  the  entanglement  and  bewilderment  of  the 
reader  in  the  intricacies  of  dozens  of  winding  alleys  and 
by-paths  that  would  lead  him  away  from  the  main  road 
into  a  wilderness,  so  that  finally  he  could  not  see  the  forest 
for  the  trees.  I  suspect  that  such  a  result  would  accord 
fully  with  Dr.  Flood's  hope. 

Another  method  would  be  to  dissect  his  whole  "  Reply  " 
and  place  the  fragments  under  appropriate  headings  or 
categories,  in  order  to  illustrate  the  fact  that  his  "  Reply  " 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  113 

is  a  bundle  of  irrelevancies,  reckless  assertions,  wrong  in- 
sinuations, false  implications,  ambiguities,  loose  argument 
and  loose  statement;  that  Dr.  Flood  appears  never  to  have 
learned  the  true  meaning  and  value  of  quotation-marks; 
and,  finally,  that  he  is — consciously  or  unconsciously — 
adept  in  misleading  a  reader  by  implying  things  which  he 
is  unwilling  directly  to  affirm.  This  method  would  also 
require  much  space. 

Now  I  will  combine  these  methods  in  such  a  way  as  to 
satisfy  both  the  hasty  and  the  leisured  reader.  The  hasty 
reader,  who  has  not  sufficient  interest  in  the  whole  matter 
to  wade  through  a  long,  because  a  detailed,  analysis  and 
disproof  of  a  most  tangled  and  inconsequent  argument 
may  feel  that  my  illustration  of  the  first  method  will  make 
unnecessary  any  further  reading;  for  the  italicised  headings 
will  also  serve  to  illustrate  the  second  method,  and  give 
some  idea  of  Dr.  Flood's  mental  processes.  The  leisured 
reader,  who  may  also  take  interest  in  the  matter  at  issue, 
will  perhaps  be  willing  to  follow  me  in  my  further  illustra- 
tions of  the  second  method. 

I.  The  Seriatim  Method. 
My  illustration  of  this  method  will  comprise  two  of  Dr. 
Flood's  points.  In  order  to  avoid  unfair  picking  and  choos- 
ing, I  take  the  first  two  that  present  themselves.  These  are 
numbered  1  and  2  by  Dr.  Flood.1  Any  others  would  an- 
swer my  purpose;  and  if  Dr.  Flood  should  hereafter  desire 
me  to  take  up  any  other  two  (whether  consecutive  or  not 
is  indifferent  to  me)  I  shall  gladly  do  so.  I  suggest  that 
only  two  points  be  taken  up,  in  the  interests  both  of  the 
reader  and  of  the  magazine;  for  even  two  points  will  re- 
quire, as  I  have  said,  an  inevitably  large  consumption  of 
space  where  the  method  followed  is  that  of  detailed  analysis. 

1  No.  2  I  have  already  considered  in  the  preface  to  my  Rejoinder 
proper. 


H4  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

section  "  i  ". 
I  begin,  then,  with  number  i,  and  shall  give  every  word 
of  it  under  as  appropriate  headings  as  I  am  able  to  devise. 

(a)  False  Suggestion,  (b)  Ambiguity  of  Statement. 
As  regards  "  expert  opinion  ",  I  hold  by  the  Irish  origin. 
The  opinion  with  which  I  am  credited,  in  the  quotation 
from   Church  Music,  is  that  of  Dr.  W.   H.   Cummings, 
and  not  mine. 

The  two  sentences  exhibit,  in  combination,  a  looseness  of 
statement  which  makes  a  reader  hesitate  or,  worse  still, 
accept  a  conclusion  that  is  really  wrong.  The  first  sentence 
gives  the  present  view  of  Dr.  Flood,  which  is  also  that  con- 
tributed by  him  to  the  Ave  Maria  (6  July,  1912).  The 
second  sentence  refers  to  the  opinion  contributed  by  him  to 
Church  Music  (September,  1909),  which  is  directly  op- 
posed to  his  present  opinion.  Dr.  Flood  declares  the  1909 
opinion  "not  mine"  (that  is,  not  Dr.  Flood's).  The 
reader  will  have  observed  that  Dr.  Flood  skilfully  uses  the 
present  tense:  "  The  opinion  .  .  .  is  .  .  .  not  mine."  Of 
course,  it  is  not  his  now.  Does  he  then  mean  to  declare 
openly  that  it  was  not  his  in  1909?  No,  he  will  not  declare 
this  openly;  but  he  is  apparently  willing  that  the  reader 
should  so  understand  him,  for  the  implication  of  the  com- 
bined sentences  is  that  Dr.  Flood  did  not,  in  1909,  hold  the 
opinion  which  he  now  rejects.  I  will  show  further  on  that 
he  really  did,  in  1909,  hold  the  opinion  which  he  now  re- 
jects. The  two  sentences  are  therefore  misleading,  as  they 
appear  to  imply  what  is  the  very  reverse  of  the  truth. 

There  is  also  ambiguity  in  the  second  sentence;  for  it 
speaks  of  the  "quotation"  (singular),  whereas  there  are 
two  quotations  from  Church  Music,  which  appear  on  the 
same  page  (p.  296)  of  the  Records,  and  which  are  separ- 
ated from  each  other  by  only  six  lines  of  text.  Both  quo- 
tations are  in  the  form  of  separate  paragraphs,  and  the 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  115 

smaller  type  in  which  they  are  printed  causes  them  to  stand 
out  boldly  from  the  page.  To  which  of  these  quotations 
does  Dr.  Flood  now  refer?  He  writes  in  such  a  loose 
fashion  as  to  make  one  almost  despair  of  answering  him 
intelligently  or  intelligibly;  for  both  extracts  from  Church 
Music  affirm  a  conviction  that  John  Stafford  Smith  com- 
posed the  air.  Let  me  repeat  them  here.  The  first  ex- 
tract is: 

In  June,  1904,  .  .  .  Dr.  Cummings,  in  his  lecture  on  "Old 
English  Songs  "  .  .  .  proved  conclusively  that  Smith  was 
the  composer.  .  .  . 

These  are  the  words  of  Dr.  Flood  in  Church  Music  in  1909. 
In  them  he  declares  explicitly  his  conviction  that  Dr.  Cum- 
mings had  proved  conclusively  that  Smith  was  the  composer. 
Does  Dr.  Flood  wish  us  to  understand  now  that  when  he 
wrote  the  above  words  he  really  did  not  mean  to  express  his 
own  view,  but  was  merely  rehearsing  Dr.  Cummings' 
opinion  that  Dr.  Cummings  had  proved  conclusively  the 
authorship  of  Smith? 

The  second  of  the  extracts  from  Church  Music  is  as 
follows : 

Smith  was  in  his  21st  year  when  he  composed  the  music 
in  1 770-1.  .  .  .  The  most  decisive  proof  of  the  fact  that 
the  tune  was  composed  by  Smith  is  that  he  includes  it  in 
his  Fifth  Collection  of  Canzonets,  Catches,  etc.,  in  1781. 

It  is  obvious  that  both  of  these  extracts  affirm  the  same 
view,  namely,  that  Smith  composed  the  air.  This  second 
extract  is  from  Dr.  Flood's  (1909)  article  entitled  Notes 
on  the  Origin  of  "  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven  ".  Does  he 
now  wish  us  to  understand  that  the  whole  article,  or  the 
portion  given  in  the  extract,  was  a  quotation  from  some 
letter  written  to  him  by  Dr.  Cummings  ? 


n6  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

Now  the  first  extract  is  taken  from  a  sort  of  preface  Dr. 
Flood  wrote  to  his  article,  and  both  the  prefatory  matter 
and  the  article  itself  appeared  in  Church  Music,  September, 
1909  (pp.  281-282). 

That  Dr.  Flood  certainly  believed  Smith  to  be  the  com- 
poser when,  in  1909,  Dr.  Flood  sent  his  "  Notes  "  to  Church 
Music,  is  evident  from  the  following  statement  of  fact: 

The  May  issue,  1909,  of  Church  Music,  quoted  from  the 
Philadelphia  North  American  (14  Feb.)  a  statement  of  a 
musician  that  he  had  discovered,  in  the  British  Museum, 
the  Dublin  copy  of  "Anacreon  ",  as  also  Smith's  Fifth  Book 
(giving  the  Anacreontic  Song  and  with  it  printing  the 
phrase  "  harmonized  by  the  author  " — the  musician  conclud- 
ing, from  this  phrase,  that  Smith  was  the  composer  of  the 
tune).  Thereupon  Dr.  Flood  wrote  to  Church  Music  to 
say  that  the  "  announcement  is  somewhat  belated.  It  is 
now  six  years  since  I  examined  the  Dublin  printed  copy  of 
the  original  song  l  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven  ',  and  I  also 
examined  the  copy  containing  the  information  that  the  music 
was  composed2  by  John  Stafford  Smith  [italics  mine]  .  .  . 
In  January,  1908,  I  was  asked  ...  to  write  some  notes 
...  on  the  original  air  to  which  the  Anacreontic  ode  was 
sung  ...  I  herewith  subjoin  my  notes  [italics  mine]  on 
1  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven  ',  as  doubtless  they  will  prove  of 
interest  to  many  readers  of  Church  Music.  It  is  worthy 
of  note  that  while  '  Yankee  Doodle  '  is  of  Irish  origin,  the 
'  Star-Spangled  Banner '  had  its  provenance  in  England  " 
[italics  mine]. 

All  this  makes  it  clear  beyond  the  possibility  of  evasion 
that,  in  1909,  Dr.  Flood  did  believe  the  air  to  be  English, 
and  to  be  Smith's  composition.     Now  all  this  was  by  way  of 

2  We  have  here  the  clearest  possible  evidence  that,  in  1909,  Dr.  Flood 
interpreted  "author" — in  the  phrase  "harmonized  by  the  author" — 
in  the  sense  of  "composer",  and  that  Dr.  Flood  therefore  believed 
Smith  to  be  the  composer  of  the  tune! 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  117 

preface.  Next  followed  his  Notes  on  the  Origin  etc., 
which — as  I  have  shown  in  the  above  extract — he  styled 
'*  my  notes ",  and  in  which  he  argues  strenuously  for 
Simth's  authorship  of  the  tune. 

What,  then,  does  he  mean  by  now  saying :  "  The  opinion 
with  which  I  am  credited,  in  the  quotation  from  Church 
Music,  is  that  of  Dr.  W.  H.  Cummings,  and  not  mine"? 
Does  he  mean  that,  both  in  his  preface  and  in  his  article 
entitled  Notes  on  the  Origin  etc..  he  was  relying  wholly  on 
the  opinion  of  Dr.  Cummings?  that  he  was  merely  report- 
ing it?  On  the  contrary,  he  says  that  he  himself  "  ex- 
amined the  copy  containing  the  information  that  the  music 
was  composed  [not  '  arranged  ']  by  John  Stafford  Smith." 

(c)  Ambiguity,  (d)  False  Implication,  (e)  Irrelevance. 

The  absence  of  quotation  marks  leads  to  a  wrong  infer- 
ence, as  I  quoted  the  words  of  my  friend,  taken  from  a 
letter.    And,  let  me  add,  Dr.  Cummings  was  at  fault. 

A  reader  of  these  two  sentences  might  easily  infer  that 
there  was  a  fault  somewhere — either  in  the  printing  of 
Dr.  Flood's  article  in  Church  Music,  or  in  my  own  handling 
of  the  extract  from  Church  Music,  and  that  the  fault  took 
the  form  of  an  omission  of  quotation-marks.  The  fact  is 
that  Dr.  Flood  himself  placed  no  quotation-marks,  and 
gave  no  other  intimation  that  he  was  quoting;  and  no 
reader  could  suppose  that  he  was  quoting.  Indeed,  Dr. 
Flood  himself  explicitly  declared,  in  his  article  in  Church 
Music,  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  "  Notes  "  from  which 
the  extract  was  made,  for  he  wrote  of  them  as  "  my  notes 
on  'To  Anacreon  in  Heaven'  "  (See  Church  Music,  p.  281). 

"And,  let  me  add,  Dr.  Cummings  was  at  fault",  says  Dr. 
Flood.  Here  is  a  false  implication;  for  any  reader  would 
suppose  that  Dr.  Flood  simply  reported  the  opinion  of 
some  other  person,  without  sharing  it.  The  extracts  from 
Church  Music  in  the  Records  (p.  296),  which  I  have  re- 


n8  American   Catholic  Historical  Society 

printed  here  (see  above)  show,  beyond  the  possibility  of 
evasion,  that  Dr.  Flood  did  share  the  opinion  which  he  now 
implies  that  he  was  merely  reporting. 

But  here,  also,  is  an  irrelevance;  for  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  Dr.  Cummings'  opinion  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  matter  now  in  hand.  We  are  dealing  exclusively  with 
the  opinion  expressed  by  Dr.  Flood  in  the  Ave  Maria  in 
191 2,  which  flatly  contradicted  the  opinion  expressed  by 
him  in  Church  Music  in  1909. 

(/)  False  Insinuation,  (g)  Further  Irrelevance. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  Mr.  Sonneck  in  his  Report 
(p.  20)  also  endeavors  to  discredit  my  reference  to  Dr. 
Cummings,  but  I  have  the  letter  before  me  as  I  write. 

Will  the  reader  be  good  enough  to  read  the  above-quoted 
sentence  again,  and  note  particularly  the  skilful  introduc- 
tion of  the  word  "  also  "?  This  word  conveys  an  insinu- 
ation that  in  the  Records  I  had  endeavored  to  discredit  a 
supposed  "  reference  "  to  Dr.  Cummings  in  connection  with 
what  Dr.  Flood  styles  "  the  quotation  "  from  Church  Music 
(sc.  in  the  Records,  p.  296).  What  is  Dr.  Flood  now 
talking  about?  I  can  conceive  of  no  other  "  reference  "  in 
this  connection  than  that  contained  in  the  first  extract — or 
quotation — from  Church  Music : 

In  June,  1904,  .  .  .  Dr.  Cummings,  in  his  lecture  on  "Old 
English  Songs  "...  proved  conclusively  that  Smith  was 
the  composer.  .  .  . 

In  these  words,  Dr.  Flood  makes  reference  to  Dr.  Cum- 
mings, and  to  a  lecture  (not  to  a  letter)  by  Dr.  Cummings, 
and  to  conclusive  proofs  given  in  that  lecture.  Dr.  Flood 
now  insinuates  that  he  had  referred  the  conviction  that  the 
proofs  were  conclusive,  to  Dr.  Cummings,  and  writes  now 
that  he  has  the  letter  (an  entirely  new  thing,  unmentioned 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  119 

by  Dr.  Flood  in  his  article  in  Church  Music,  or  in  his  pre- 
face to  that  article)  of  Dr.  Cummings  lying  before  him  as 
he  writes. 

"  Oh,  what  a  tangled  web  we  weave 
When  first  we  practice  to  deceive !" 

Everything  would  have  been  clear  from  the  start,  if  only 
Dr.  Flood  had  been  willing  to  admit  that  his  apparently 
learned  information  concerning  the  tune  was  in  reality  due 
to  Dr.  Cummings.  Dr.  Flood  would  not  do  this,  but  now 
insinuates  that  any  reader  ought  to  have  known  that  the 
words  "  proved  conclusively  "  were  not  an  expression  of 
Dr.  Flood's,  but  were  merely  Dr.  Cummings'  own  view  as 
to  the  cogency  of  Dr.  Cummings'  own  arguments! 

Dr.  Flood  seems  to  associate  me  with  Mr.  Sonneck  in  a 
conspiracy  "  to  discredit "  Dr.  Flood's  "  reference  to  Dr. 
Cummings ".  Perhaps  Dr.  Flood  wishes  his  readers  to 
think  that  he  suspects  a  conspiracy.  It  is  nevertheless  cer- 
tain that  he  has  no  such  sinister  suspicion ;  for  no  one  knows 
better  than  himself  that  he  nowhere  referred  to  Dr.  Cum- 
mings as  his  authority  for  his  various  statements. 

Dr.  Flood  is  using  the  word  "  reference  "  equivocally. 
He  means  an  entirely  different  thing  now  from  the  "  refer- 
ence "  given  above  in  the  extract  from  Church  Music.  For 
he  gives  the  page  in  Mr.  Sonneck's  Report  (p.  20),  where 
a  paragraph  is  quoted  from  the  "  Notes  "  he  had  sent  to 
Mr.  Sonneck.  The  reader  will  at  once  perceive  that  Dr. 
Flood  is  here  treating  of  an  entirely  different  matter  from 
the  question  of  "  proved  conclusively  ".  Indeed,  he  here 
assumes  the  role  of  one  who  discredits  the  item  of  infor- 
mation given  to  him  by  Dr.  Cummings !  Here  is  the  para- 
graph of  Dr.  Flood's  as  given  in  the  Report  (p.  20)  : 

The  words  and  music  of  "  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven " 
were  published  by  Longman  and  Broderip  in  1779-1780, 
and  were  reprinted  by  Anne  Lee  of  Dublin   (  ?  1780)   in 


120  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

1 781.  Dr.  Cummings  says  that  he  saw  a  copy  printed  by 
Henry  Fought — at  least  it  is  made  up  with  single  sheets 
printed  by  Fought — but  this  is  scarcely  likely,  as  Fought 
did  not  print  after  1770,  and  the  song  and  music  were  not 
in  existence  till  1770-71. 

The  reference  made  here  to  Dr.  Cummings  is  to  the  ef- 
fect that  Dr.  Cummings  "  says  "  something  which  Dr. 
Flood  disputes !  Again,  the  word  "  says  "  does  not  imply 
a  letter  from  Dr.  Cummings  to  Dr.  Flood ;  for  "  says " 
might  equally  refer  to  the  "  lecture  "  by  Dr.  Cummings,  or 
to  a  book  by  him,  or  to  a  conversation  between  him  and 
Dr.  Flood.  Mr.  Sonneck  interprets  "  says  "  as  meaning 
probably  a  conversation ;  for  he  thus  writes :  "Apparently 
Mr.  Grattan  Flood  reported  part  of  a  conversation  with  the 
distinguished  English  scholar  .  .  .  ".  Why  is  Dr.  Flood 
so  secretive?  If  what  he  had  to  communicate  to  Mr. 
Sonneck  or  to  Church  Music  was  contained  in  a  letter  sent 
to  Dr.  Flood  by  Dr.  Cummings,  why  could  not  Dr.  Flood 
honestly  admit  the  fact,  and  not  strut  around  in  borrowed 
plumage  ?  At  all  events,  Dr.  Flood  uses  the  word  "  re- 
ference "  equivocally ;  for  when  he  is  applying  the  "  dis- 
credit "  business  to  me,  he  means  a  very  different  subject- 
matter  from  that  which  he  speaks  of  when  applying  the 
discrediting  to  Mr.  Sonneck. 

Finally,  the  meaning  of  all  of  Dr.  Flood's  talk  about  an 
endeavor  to  discredit  his  "reference"  is  simply  this:  Dr. 
Flood  wishes  his  readers  to  infer  that  he  had  made  a 
"  reference  "  to  Dr.  Cummings  as  authority  for  Dr.  Flood's 
statements  and  arguments  for  Smith's  authorship  of  the 
tune.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  Dr.  Flood  made  no  such 
"  reference  ". 

(h)  Clouding  the  Issue. 
Mr.  Sonneck  also  without  reservation  (p.  27)  quotes  the 
air  as  by  John  Stafford  Smith. 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  121 

In  his  Report  (p.  20)  Mr.  Sonneck  exhibits  some  doubt 
as  to  a  sheet  song  mentioned  by  Dr.  Cummings,  and  as  to 
its  bearing  Smith's  name  as  composer  of  the  tune.  Doubt 
number  one.  Again  (p.  22)  he  points  out  that  in  Stewart's 
Vocal  Magazine  of  1797,  the  names  of  composers  of  many 
tunes  are  given  in  a  separate  index,  but  that  Smith's  name 
is  not  given  for  "Anacreon  ".  Doubt  number  two.  He 
nevertheless  admits  that  Smith's  phrase  "  harmonized  by 
the  author  "  renders  it  probable  that  Smith  refers  to  himself 
as  the  composer  of  the  music  (p.  23).  In  all  these  cases. 
Mr.  Sonneck  is  dealing  with  the  question  of  the  ascription 
of  the  tune.  But  even  when  he  leaves  this  question,  in 
order  to  consider  that  of  the  different  forms  of  the  melody, 
he  takes  new  occasion  to  exhibit  his  lack  of  concurrence 
in  the  common  ascription  to  Smith.     For  he  writes : 

Probably  Smith  composed  it,  if  he  really  did  compose  the 
tune,  as  a  song  for  one  voice.  ...  Of  course,  if  the  sup- 
posed 1771  sheet  song  was  a  sheet  song  for  one  voice,  and 
if  it  contained  Smith's  name  as  composer,  then  all  doubt 
as  to  the  original  form  and  to  the  composer  vanishes. 

Would  Dr.  Flood,  the  ardent  lover  of  brevity,  require  Mr. 
Sonneck  to  repeat  all  those  expressions  (the  ones  I  have 
italicised)  of  hesitancy  every  time  he  mentions  Smith's 
name?  Surely  Dr.  Flood  is  aware  of  the  canon  that  a 
writer's  subsequent  declarations  are  to  be  read  in  the  light 
of  his  previous  ones. 

I  have  examined  every  sentence  of  Dr.  Flood's  section  1 
and  have  discovered  more  errors  than  there  are  sentences. 
Although  I  have  written  as  concisely  as  the  interests  of 
accuracy  would  permit,  I  have  consumed  much  space.  In 
strict  justice,  one  further  step  is  necessary.  Having  ex- 
amined the  section  1  per  partes,  I  must  finally  consider  it 
as  a  whole. 


122  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

As  a  whole,  section  "  i  "  is  meant  to  convey  to  the  reader 
that  Dr.  Flood  did  not,  when  he  contributed  his  article  to 
Church  Music  in  1909,  believe  that  Smith  composed  the 
tune.  As  in  the  Ave  Maria  Dr.  Flood  tried  to  saddle  Mr. 
Sonneck  with  the  burden  of  an  opinion  which  Dr.  Flood 
held  in  1909  but  rejected  in  1912,  so  now,  in  section  "  1  ". 
he  tries  to  relieve  himself  of  the  1909  opinion  by  fathering 
it  on  Dr.  Cummings. 

In  section  "  1  ",  therefore,  Dr.  Flood  constructs  for  him- 
self a  dilemma,  either  of  whose  horns  must  be  rather  un- 
comfortable for  him  to  rest  upon.  For  either  he  relied  on 
Dr.  Cummings  for  the  conviction  of  conclusive  proof  of 
Smith's  authorship  of  the  tune,  or  he  relied  on  his  own 
expert  powers  for  that  conviction.  If  he  selects  the  former 
horn  of  the  dilemma,  Dr.  Flood  confesses  that  he  himself 
is  simply  one  of  those  "  copyists  "  whom  he  sneers  at  in  the 
Ave  Maria  and  in  his  present  "  Reply  "  (section  5,  b).  If 
he  selects  the  latter  horn  of  the  dilemma,  he  admits  that 
which  I  charged  him  with  (Records,  pp.  296-299),  namely, 
declaring  a  certainty  one  day  and  flatly  contradicting  that 
certainty  another  day;  for  in  1909  he  considered  that  Dr. 
Cummings  had  "  proved  conclusively  "  that  Smith  com- 
posed the  tune,  whereas  in  19 12  he  considered  that  Mr. 
Blake  had  produced  "  indisputable  evidence  "  that  Smith 
did  not  compose  the  tune. 

In  making  my  detailed  examination  of  only  two  (and 
part  of  a  third)  sections  of  Dr.  Flood's  "  Reply  ",  I  have 
used  but  one-tenth  of  his  pages,  and  have  nevertheless  con- 
sumed much  space,  and  have  unavoidably  done  so.  But  I 
think  I  have  given  the  hasty  reader  such  a  satisfactory  view 
of  the  psychology  of  Dr.  Flood  and  of  the  argumentative 
value  of  anything  he  writes,  as  to  render  unnecessary  any 
further  detailed  investigation. 

My  next  business  is  to  give  some  illustrations  which  may 
interest  the  leisured  reader.  This  I  shall  do  under  the 
heading: 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  123 

II.  The  Categorical  Method. 
I  have  already  illustrated  many  ineptitudes  of  Dr.  Flood 
— his  irrelevancy,  his  false  insinuation  and  implication,  his 
looseness  of  statement,  his  ambiguity.  Let  me  now  run 
through  his  other  points  or  heads  of  argument,  and  pick  out 
other  illustrations  of  ineptitude.  I  shall  indicate  at  the 
end  of  each  extract  the  point  or  section  whence  I  take  it. 

1.    QUOTATION. 

(a)  My  quotation  from  Dr.  Cummings  refers  to  the  air 
being  reminiscent  of  Dr.  Boyce.  (3) 

(b)  I  may  also  add  that  the  earliest  title  of  the  song 
"  Bumpers,  Squire  Jones,"  was  as  here  given,  not 
''Bumpers  Esquire  Jones",  as  Dr.  Henry  gives  it.    (4) 

(c)  I  hope  that  Dr.  Henry  will  be  more  cautious  in  future 
in  quoting  at  second-hand  from  either  Chappell  or 
Hullah.  ...     (5) 

(d)  Dr.  Henry,  who  assures  his  readers  that  he  makes 
his  statements  "  with  equal  confidence — and  from  an 
equally  acceptable  source — with  those  of  Dr.  Flood  ". 

(s) 

This  is  a  pretty  good  bunch  of  extracts  illustrating  Dr. 
Flood's  idea  of  quotation. 

As  to  (a),  Dr.  Flood  placed  no  marks  of  quotation  to 
indicate  that  he  was  quoting.  Why  not?  Was  it  by  acci- 
dent or  by  design? 

As  to  (b),  I  nowhere  gave  the  title  as  "  Bumpers  Esquire 
Jones  ".  In  a  footnote  to  the  Records,  page  304,  I  said 
that  O'Neill  gives  it  thus  in  his  Irish  Folk  Music.  I  my- 
self always  gave  the  title  either  as  "  Bumper,  'Squire  Jones  " 
or  in  the  condensed  form  of  "  Bumper  ".  Is  it  impossible 
for  Dr.  Flood  to  quote  accurately  ? 

As  to  (c)  :  One  needs  not  to  be  cautious  in  quoting  at 
second-hand,  if  only  he  is  honest  enough  to  make  it  clear 
that  he  is  so  quoting.  I  made  it  clear  by  most  careful  plac- 
ing of  quotation-marks   (Records,  pp.   310,  311)   that  I 


124  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

was  quoting  always  from  Hullah,  even  when  Hullah  was 
himself  quoting  from  Chappell.  I  did  not  pretend  to  be 
quoting  at  any  time  directly  from  Chappell.  Would  that 
Dr.  Flood  had  been  equally  honest  in  his  many  "quotations" 
from  that  mysterious  letter  from  Dr.  Cummings !  But  Dr. 
Flood's  insinuation  that  I  also  quoted  at  second-hand  from 
Hullah  is  simply  false.  I  suspect  that  the  learned  Doctor 
never  has  seen  Hullah's  volume ;  and  I  should  be  also  fully 
justified  in  a  suspicion,  based  on  Dr.  Flood's  "  quotations  ", 
that  Dr.  Flood  simply  mirrors,  in  his  insinuation,  the  de- 
vious windings  of  his  own  mind  and  the  practices  he  him- 
self indulges  in. 

As  to  (d),  we  are  by  this  time  quite  ready  to  understand 
that,  when  Dr.  Flood  really  quotes,  he  avoids  giving  the 
requisite  quotation-marks;  and  that,  e  converso,  when  he 
does  place  quotation-marks,  he  garbles  in  one  way  or  an- 
other. Now  I  did  not  assure  my  readers  (Records,  p.  311) 
that  I  made  the  statements  ascribing  certain  "  Irish  "  tunes 
to  English  authors  "  with  equal  confidence  "  etc.  I  gave 
those  statements  or  ascriptions  professedly  from  Hullah. 
and  declared  that  I  did  not  purpose  to  enter  into  the 
correctness  of  the  ascriptions.  I  then  immediately  added: 
"  Whether  the  statements  be  objectively  correct  or  not. 
they  are  made  with  equal  confidence  [sc.  by  Hullah,  as  the 
context  shows] — and  from  an  equally  acceptable  source — 
with  those  of  Dr.  Flood." 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  "  Quotation  ",  let  me  add 
the  following  illustrations  (taken  from  the  subsequent 
numeration,  1-4,  at  the  end  of  Dr.  Flood's  article). 

(e)  Dr.  Henry  quotes  Mr.  Sonneck's  Report  for  the  pub- 
lication of  the  song,  but  he  omits  the  Rhames  copy  of 
circa  177S,  and  he  omits  .  .  .   [two  others] 

My  list  (Records,  p.  315)  was,  as  I  stated  explicitly, 
"  abbreviated  from  Sonneck's  Report  ".     Dr.  Flood — who 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  125 

appears  to  have  no  idea  of  the  requirements  of  fidelity  in 
quoting  others — declares  that  I  omit  the  Rhames  copy,  etc. 
The  fact  is  that  I  did  not  omit  anything.  The  Report, 
whose  list  I  professedly  abbreviated,  does  not  mention  the 
Rhames  copy,  etc.  How  then  could  I  omit  what  was  not 
there?  Had  I  inserted  items  not  found  in  Mr.  Sonneck's 
list,  I  should  have  been  guilty  of  the  literary  sin  so  often 
committed  by  Dr.  Flood — the  sin,  namely,  of  inaccurate 
quotation. 

(f)  Smith  Arranged  the  Air  as  a  Glee.    Yes,  he  arranged 
it,  and  that  is  about  all  he  did  with  it.  .  .  . 

(g)  "  Smith  never  claimed  the  tune  as  his."    He  did  not, 
for  the  best  of  reasons. 

A  reader  of  my  article  must  have  noticed  (Records,  p. 
313)  that  the  headings  of  the  "  Negative  Argument "  were 
based,  not  on  my  own  opinions,  but  on  Dr.  Flood's  article 
in  the  Ave  Maria.  It  was  not  I  who  said  that  Smith  had 
arranged  the  air  as  a  glee.  Dr.  Flood  had  said  that,  and 
had  included  the  word  "  merely  ".  But  Dr.  Flood,  slavishly 
following  the  argument  of  Mr.  Blake,  put  the  word  glee 
in  quotation  marks  ("  glee  "),  as  though  Smith  himself  had 
so  characterized  his  arrangement  of  the  tune.  I  pointed 
out  that  Smith  had  not  styled  his  work  a  "  glee  ",  as  any 
reader  of  Dr.  Flood's  would  have  been  misled  into  sup- 
posing. I  wonder  if  Dr.  Flood  will  ever  learn  the  proper 
use  of  quotation-marks. 

Again,  my  heading  was  not :  "  Smith  never  claimed  the 
tune  as  his  ".  My  heading  was :  Smith  "  Never  Claimed 
the  Tune  as  His"  (Records,  p.  320) — the  marks  of  quo- 
tation indicating  clearly  that  I  was  not  expressing  my  own 
opinion.  Dr.  Flood's  present  language  [given  in  (f)  and 
(g)]  would  almost  make  an  Aristotle  suppose  that  I  was 
fathering  those  headings. 


126  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

Finally,  the  capital  sin  of  Dr.  Flood's  in  the  matter  of 
quotation  is  the  one  which  I  commented  upon  in  the 
Records  (p.  297),  and  I  beg  to  refer  my  readers  to  my 
comment  thereon. 

2.    MISREPRESENTATION. 

This  heading  may  not  be  wholly  accurate  or  wholly  ade- 
quate, for  I  wish  to  include  such  things  as  evasion,  sug- 
gestio  falsi,  etc.  I  will  place  a  numeral  after  each  extract 
in  order  to  indicate  the  section  of  Dr.  Flood's  "  Reply  " 
from  which  it  is  taken. 

But  my  first  illustration  is  from  the  second  paragraph 
of  the  "Reply": 

1.  To  begin  with,  it  is  gratifying  that  Dr.  Henry  will  not 
deny  an  Irish  origin  to  the  tune.  Even  this  is  a  con- 
cession. .  .  . 

This  is  an  obvious  misrepresentation  of  my  clearly-ex- 
pressed attitude.  It  was  no  "  concession  "  for  me  to  say 
that  the  tune  might  be  of  Irish  origin,  for  "  concession  " 
implies  that  I  desired  to  prove  the  opposite.  I  simply  made 
it  clear  that  Dr.  Flood  had  failed  in  his  arguments  to  prove 
a  contention  "  which  otherwise  might  enlist  our  hearty 
support"  (Records,  p.  292).  Again  (Records,  p.  312) 
I  wrote:  "We  should  rejoice  to  know  that  the  tune  of 
'  The  Star-Spangled  Banner '  was  of  Irish  origin.  Why, 
then,  have  we  taken  the  trouble  to  investigate  the  value  of 
the  reasoning?  Why  not  accept  as  a  fact  what  would  na- 
turally please  us  so  much?"  And  then  I  give  the  reasons 
for  my  investigation,  one  of  which  was  in  effect,  that  I  did 
not  wish  Catholics  here  to  be  made  ridiculous  by  trumpet- 
ing abroad  the  illogically  reached  conclusions  of  Dr.  Flood 
and  thus  committing  themselves  to  his  logic.  I  am  com- 
forted to  think  that  I  was  fairly  successful.  I  think  I  love 
that  "  land  of  sons: "  and  "  island  of  saints  and  scholars  " 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  127 

to  which  Dr.  Flood  refers  in  his  "  Reply  ",  quite  as  dearly 
as  does  Dr.  Flood;  but  I  should  hate  to  capitalize  my  love 
for  it  in  any  earthly  coin. 

2.  My  own  opinion  is  that  the  air  is  by  O'Carolan,  and  I 
leave  it  to  experts  to  study  O'Carolan's  many  compo- 
sitions in  order  to  corroborate  my  opinion.     (3) 

This  is  quite  an  evasion  of  the  point  at  issue.  For  in  his 
Ave  Maria  article,  Dr.  Flood  adduced  but  one  argument  for 
his  ascription  of  the  tune  to  O'Carolan,  and  this  argument 
was  that  the  tune  of  "Anacreon  "  "  has  all  the  character- 
istics "  of  "  Bumpers,  Squire  Jones ".  Did  Dr.  Flood 
thereupon  commit  the  decision  as  to  the  merits  of  this  argu- 
ment to  the  "  experts  "  he  now  speaks  of?  No,  he  there 
declared  that  his  assertion  could  "  easily  be  tested  by  a 
comparison  "  etc.  He  did  not  then  speak  of  O'Carolan's 
"  many  compositions  ",  either.  But  I  made  it  easy  for  any 
one  to  compare  the  two  tunes,  and  naturally  Dr.  Flood  does 
not  thank  me  for  the  trouble  I  took. 

3.  It  is  distinctly  uncritical  to  compare  "Anacreon  "  and 
"  Bumpers,  Squire  Jones  "  bar  for  bar,  for  even  a  tyro 
at  tuneology  (to  coin  a  word)  would  be  hopelessly 
muddled  in  endeavoring  to  trace  variants.  .  .  .  Let  me 
assure  Dr.  Henry  that  the  general  structure  and  the 
slightly  abnormal  range  of  the  melody  of  "Anacreon  " 
are  on  all  fours  with  that  of  .  .  .  and  other  magnifi- 
cent compositions  of  O'Carolan.  (4) 

One  would  suppose,  from  this  excoriation  of  my  un- 
critical procedure,  that  I  had  rested  my  demonstration  on 
a  test  which  even  a  tyro  at  "  tuneology  "  (to  quote  the 
barbarous  coining  of  Dr.  Flood)  would  have  rejected. 
What  I  really  did  (Records,  pp.  299-308)  was,  first,  to  ex- 
hibit in  all  its  nakedness  the  learned  foolishness  of  the  argu- 
ment from  "  internal  evidence  "  as  used  by  Dr.  Flood.  I 
next  directly  made  the  comparison  desired  by  Dr.  Flood. 


128  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

To  illustrate  the  significant  facts  that  "  Bumper  "  differed 
characteristically  from  "Anacreon "  in  (a)  length,  (b) 
rhythm,  (c)  phrasing,  (d)  beginning,  (e)  ending,  (f) 
melodic  progression,  (g)  spirit — to  illustrate  these  charac- 
teristic differences  between  the  melodies,  I  printed  both 
melodies  side  by  side,  and  I  took  the  trouble  to  equalize  them 
in  key  and — so  far  as  possible — in  time-measure,  in  order 
not  to  place  any  obstacle  whatever  in  the  way  of  the  fairest 
comparison.  But  it  did  not  suit  Dr.  Flood's  grandiose 
"  expert  "  methods  to  descend  to  any  particulars.  He  sim- 
ply had  hoped  that  no  one  would  take  the  trouble  to  make 
the  comparison;  and  thenceforward  he  could  triumphantly 
declare  that  he  had  "  proved  "  his  contention  netnine  con~ 
tradicente.  No,  my  dear  Doctor,  that  kind  of  thing  will 
not  "  work  "  any  more.  Even  now  you  try  to  palm  off  on 
us  that  exceedingly  vague  thing  which  you  style  "  struc- 
ture ",  and  which  you  also  urged  to  demonstrate  the  Irish 
origin  of  "  Yankee  Doodle  ". 

But  at  length,  in  his  "  Reply  ",  Dr.  Flood  does  allege  two 
things  in  proof  of  his  statement  in  the  Ave  Maria  that  the 
tune  of  "Anacreon  "  has  "  all  "  the  characteristics  of  that 
of  "  Bumper."  What  are  now  his  two  proofs?  I  have  al- 
ready discussed  them  in  the  prefatory  matter  to  my  Re- 
joinder, and  need  not  do  more  than  refer  to  them  here. 

When  an  "  expert "  in  "  tuneology "  is  forced  into  a 
corner  and  has  to  fight  for  his  oracular  assertions,  he  may 
find  that  his  own  weapons  are  boomerangs;  and  we  feel 
like  repeating  Cicero's  indignant  Qiionsque  tandem! 

4.  But  I  do  not  shirk  the  six  instances  quoted  by  Dr. 
Henry.     (5) 

The  word  "  shirk  "  suggests  that  I  had  challenged  Dr. 
Flood — either  explicitly  or  implicitly — to  take  up  the  six 
instances.  The  fact  is  that  I  had  explicitly  tried  to  avoid 
having  him  do  so,  for  I  could  pretty  clearly  foresee  into 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  129 

what  wildernesses  and  quagmires  a  discussion  would  in- 
evitably lead,  when  "  experts  "  in  "  tuneology  "  must  be 
called  upon,  with  their  arguments  from  "  the  general  struc- 
ture ",  "internal  evidence",  etc.,  such  as  Dr.  Flood  loves 
to  use.  What  I  did  was  simply  to  accept,  without  ques- 
tioning, the  downright  assertions  of  Dr.  Flood  (when  he 
was  "  proving  "  the  Irish  origin  of  "  Yankee  Doodle  " — 
see  Records,  p.  309),  and  to  place  over  against  those  as- 
sertions the  "  other  side  " — that  is,  the  assertions  of  Chap- 
pell  and  Hullah  (p.  310).  Having  done  this,  I  then  said: 
"  Into  the  correctness  of  the  above  ascriptions  of  tunes  it 
is  not  really  necessary  to  enter  here.  Whether  the  state- 
ments be  objectively  correct  or  not,  they  are  made  with 
equal  confidence — and  from  an  equally  acceptable  source — 
with  those  of  Dr.  Flood."  But  Dr.  Flood  simply  revels 
in  such  discussions,  and  despite  my  heroic  endeavor  to  avoid 
the  quagmires,  he  seized  the  opportunity  offered  him  by 
the  mere  printing  of  the  ascriptions,  and  pretends  (by 
using  the  word  "  shirk")  that  I  had  in  some  way  chal- 
lenged him  to  deny  the  ascriptions. 

5.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  spread  myself  out,  and  I  shall 
not  occupy  even  a  sixth  of  the  space  given  to  Dr. 
Henry's  article,  but  I  wish  to  take  up  his  points  seri- 
atim, and  deal  briefly  with  them.     (1st  paragraph.) 

Dr.  Flood's  method  of  following  my  points  seriatim  is 
to  skip  over  those  which  he  cannot  even  "  reply  "  to,  and 
to  concentrate  his  energies  on  those  which  he  thinks  him- 
self able  to  muddle  up  in  some  fashion  or  other.  He  really 
does  not  like  brevity,  as  his  long  discussion  of  the  "  six 
instances  " — which  I  had  done  everything  possible  to  avoid 
having  him  take  up — sufficiently  illustrates.  He  there- 
fore does  "  spread  himself  ",  where  he  imagines  he  can  do 
so  to  advantage.  Here  are  some  of  the  points  he  failed 
to  refer  to  in  his  "  Reply  " : 


130  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

1.  He  fails  to  tell  us  how  he  arrived  at  that  wonder- 
fully precise  date  of  1781  (Records,  p.  296  and  p.  313) 
for  Smith's  Fifth  Book.  He  did  not  know  what  the  date 
was,  when  he  wrote  his  Church  Music  article  in  1909,  and 
yet  he  gave  a  precise  date,  without  question-mark  or  quali- 
fication of  any  kind,  just  as  if  he  knew.  The  next  year 
(October,  1910),  Mr.  Blake  found  the  exact  date  to  be 
1799.  Dr.  Flood  seized  on  this  laboriously-obtained  date 
and  used  it  (in  the  Ave  Maria  article  of  1912)  as  a  club 
on  the  heads  of  Chappell  "  and  his  copyists  ",  and  on  Mr. 
Sonneck.  These  gentlemen  had  signified  clearly  that  they 
could  only  guess  at  the  date;  they  did  not,  like  Dr.  Flood, 
pretend  to  an  exact  knowledge,  for  at  that  time  nobody 
knew.  Dr.  Flood  must  have  an  amazing  facility  at  for- 
getting his  own  previous  acts ;  for  how  else  can  we  figure  it 
out,  that  he  should  be  willing  to  pretend  to  a  knowledge 
he  did  not  have  concerning  the  date,  and  then,  when  all  the 
world  at  length  knew  the  exact  date,  he  should  so  shame- 
lessly attack  the  men  who  had  clearly  stated  that  they  did 
not  know  the  date  (for,  indeed,  nobody  knew  the  date). 

2.  He  passes  over  the  "  horrible  example  "  I  furnished 
(Records,  p.  297)  of  Dr.  Flood's  garbling  in  his  quotation 
of  "  probably  "  from  Mr.  Sonneck' s  Report. 

3.  He  passes  over  the  attack  (Records,  p.  298)  he  had 
made  on  Mr.  Sonneck  ("  It  is  amazing  how  one  writer 
blindly  copies  another") — for  indeed  the  plea  he  now 
makes  for  his  blunders  (namely,  that  he  himself  merely 
copied  from  Dr.  Cummings)  would  turn  his  whole  "Reply" 
into  a  screaming  farce. 

4.  He  passes  over  (Records,  p.  299)  my  request  for 
evidence  to  substantiate  his  contention  that  the  words  of 
the  song  "  evidently  emanated  from  Ireland  about  the 
year  1765  ". 

5.  He  passes  over  every  one  of  my  seven  illustrations 
of  discrepant  characteristics  (summarized  on  p.  308  of  the 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  131 

Records)  except  the  one  which  deals  with  melodic  pro- 
gressions; and  when  he  takes  this  one,  it  is  not  for  the 
purpose  of  really  considering  it  and  answering  it  —  for 
he  does  not  even  now  instance  any  bars  which  are 
similar — but  for  the  purpose  of  implying  to  his  readers 
that  I  had  rested  my  argument  on  that  one  characteristic, 
and  that  tyros  in  "  tuneology  "  would  be  muddled  by  it. 

6.  He  passes  over  my  demonstration  (Records,  p.  313) 
that  he  had  placed  himself  amongst  the  "  copyists  "  whom 
he  so  much  ridiculed,  when  he  had  fixed  a  date  eighteen 
years  in  advance  of  the  true  date  of  copyright  for  Smith's 
volume. 

7.  He  passes  over  my  exhibit  that  he  had  improperly 
placed  glee  in  quotation-marks  (Records,  pp.  319-20). 

He  passes  over  the  whole  question  of  "  indisputable  evi- 
dence "  which  he  had  claimed  for  Mr.  Blake's  researches 
(Records,  p.  320). 

9.  He  passes  over — with  something  like  a  sneer — the 
admirable  argument  in  Mr.  Sonneck's  letter  concerning  the 
certificate  of  copyright  (Records,  pp.  321-323). 

10.  He  passes  over  the  various  enlightening  illustrations 
furnished  by  Fr.  Walworth's  hymn  (Records,  pp.  323-325). 

11.  He  passes  over  my  argument  concerning  Smith's  in- 
ability to  urge  any  legal  claim  outside  of  Great  Britain 
(Records,  p.  327). 

12.  He  passes  over  the  argument  based  on  Arnold's 
omission  of  the  song  from  his  collection  of  Anacreontic 
songs  (Records,  p.  328). 

13.  He  passes  over  my  whole  argument  based  on  the 
English  copyright  law  in  force  at  the  time  Smith  entered 
copyright  (Records,  pp.  328-329). 

14.  He  passes  over — but  I  do  not  wonder  at  this — the 
wholly  comic  chapter  on  Smith's  "audacity"   (Records, 

Pp.  329-333)- 


132  American   Catholic  Historical  Society 

Now  it  is  not  hard  to  be  brief  when  one  omits  the  bulk 
of  a  paper  to  which  he  is  offering  a  "  Reply  ".  The  fact 
is  that  Dr.  Flood  is  very  unnecessarily  long-winded  in  his 
"  Reply  "  to  the  few  points  he  does  take  up  for  consider- 
ation. And  he  introduces  a  number  of  irrelevancies  that 
take  up  valuable  space.  Here  are  some  occurring  in  one 
paragraph  ("  4  ")  : 

6.  Dr.  Henry  has  fallen  into  a  trap  by  following  Captain 
O'Neill's  Irish  Folk  Music  when  he  dates  Burke  Thu- 
moth's  Collection  as  1720,  and  styles  it  the  "first  col- 
lection of  Irish  Airs  ".  Both  statements  are  wrong. 
.  .  .  Nor  does  Dr.  Henry  appear  to  be  aware  that  the 
tune  was  reprinted  in  O'Carolan's  Collection  in  1747, 
and  reprinted  by  John  Lee  in  January,  1779 — not  1780. 

Dr.  Flood  himself  has  fallen  into  a  trap  by  assuming 
that  I  had  here  followed  O'Neill,  who  does  not  give  the 
date  as  1720  for  Thumoth's  Collection,  but  instead  gives  the 
date  of  1742  for  Thumoth's  Twelve  Scotch  and  Twelve 
Irish  Airs  etc.,  and  1745  for  his  Twelve  English  and  Twelve 
Irish  Airs,  and  gives  these  same  dates  on  two  different  pages 
— pp.  189,  237 — and  furthermore  says  that  he  possesses 
both  volumes.  Dr.  Flood  gives  the  date  of  1743.  I  do 
not  pretend  to  know  whether  he  or  O'Neill  is  correct.  But 
Dr.  Flood's  willingness  absolutely  to  date  (without  ques- 
tion-mark or  qualification  of  any  kind)  Smith's  Fifth  Book 
as  1 78 1,  without  knowing  at  all  whether  that  date  was  even 
approximately  correct,  makes  me  lean  to  the  dates  given 
by  Captain  O'Neill.  It  is  an  irrelevancy  even  to  mention 
the  date  in  a  brief  "  Reply  "  that  omits  so  many  prominent 
points  of  an  opposite  argument.  But  what  follows  in  the 
extract  given  above  is  even  less  relevant,  and  is  intended 
merely  to  exhibit  Dr.  Flood's  bibliographical  learning.  But 
it  was  not  I  who  gave  the  date  of  1780,  which  Dr.  Flood 
particularly  assures  us  should  be  one  year  earlier.     It  was 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  133 

O'Neill  who  gave  that  date,  and  I  formally  credited  it  to 
him  (in  the  footnote  to  page  304  of  the  Records).  And 
whether  O'Neill  or  Dr.  Flood  is  correct,  I  shall  not  pretend 
to  judge — although  under  the  circumstances  I  again  feel  it 
safer  to  rely  upon  O'Neill. 

I  end  with  Dr.  Flood's  closing  paragraph,  which  con- 
tains this : 

7.  If  Dr.  Henry,  or  any  one  else,  can  substantiate  Ralph 
Tomlinson's  claim  as  author  [of  the  words]  then  I 
apologise.  Mr.  Warrington  merely  relies  on  Dr.  Cum- 
mings,  but  Dr.  Cummings  told  me  a  different  story, 
and  so  the  matter  rests. 

But  in  Dr.  Flood's  article  in  Church  Music  (1909)  he 
wrote : 

However,  it  is  now  tolerably  certain  that  the  song  was 
written  by  Ralph  Tomlinson  in  1770  or  1771,  as  the  char- 
ter-song of  the  Anacreontic  Society.  .  .  . 
There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that  Ralph  Tomlinson 
wrote  the  song  in  the  winter  of  1770. 

The  reader  may  think  it  strange  to  find  Dr.  Flood  hesi- 
tating, in  the  first  of  these  two  sentences,  as  to  the  year — 
1770  or  1 77 1 ;  and  then,  in  the  second  sentence,  flatly  assert- 
ing the  date  as  "  the  winter  of  1770  ",  without  any  "  toler- 
ably certain  "  about  it.  The  two  sentences  are  separated, 
in  the  article  in  Church  Music,  by  only  one  intervening 
sentence!  However,  it  is  clear,  from  both  sentences,  that 
in  1909  Dr.  Flood  was  certain  of  the  authorship  of  Ralph 
Tomlinson.  Just  here  comes  in  a  great  difficulty.  Will 
Dr.  Flood  say — as  he  has  more  than  once  said,  in  his 
"  Reply  ",  when  wishing  to  unload  his  1909  assertions  upon 
Dr.  Cummings — that  in  so  roundly  asserting  Ralph  Tomlin- 
son's authorship,  he  was  simply  expressing  the  opinion  of 
Dr.  Cummings?     He  cannot  well  do  this  now,  for  it  ap- 


134  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

pears  (from  the  last  paragraph  of  his  "  Reply  ")  that  Mr. 
Warrington's  reference  to  Dr.  Cummings  as  his  authority 
for  the  authorship  of  Tomlinsort  is  not  upheld  by  Dr. 
Flood's  memory  of  what  Dr.  Cummings  said  to  Dr.  Flood 
upon  this  precise  point :  "  Mr.  Warrington  merely  relies 
on  Dr.  Cummings,  but  Dr.  Cummings  told  me  a  different 
story",  says  Dr.  Flood  (italics  mine).  It  must  follow 
from  all  this  that,  in  1909,  Dr.  Flood  asserted  on  his  own 
responsibility,  that :  "  There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that 
Ralph  Tomlinson  wrote  the  song  in  the  winter  of  1770." 
And  now,  in  his  "  Reply  ",  Dr.  Flood  challenges  me,  or 
anybody  else,  to  prove  that  Ralph  Tomlinson  wrote  the 
song!  Gentle  reader,  what  can  you  make  of  the  whole 
beautiful  muddle? 

L'Envoi. 

Readers  who  may  think  my  "  seriatim  "  and  "  categori- 
cal "  methods  somewhat  drastic  in  their  application  to  Dr. 
Flood's  "  Reply  ",  should  read  the  "  Rejoinder  "  made  by 
the  Rev.  Thomas  Gogarty  to  Dr.  Flood's  "  Reply  "  ("  The 
Dawn  of  the  Reformation ")  in  The  Irish  Theological 
Quarterly  for  January,  19 14.  Fr.  Gogarty's  Rejoinder  is 
twice  as-  long  as  Dr.  Flood's  Reply,  but  is  concise,  clear, 
incisive. 

Of  course,  Dr.  Flood,  in  his  first  paragraph,  pleads  that  he 
does  not  mean  to  "  reply  fully  ",  as  to  do  so  "  would  occupy 
more  space  than  the  Editors  could  be  expected  to  allow 
me  ",  and  hence  deals  "  only  with  the  graver  issues,  and 
particularly  with  the  inaccuracies "  of  Father  Gogarty's 
previous  article. 

Apropos  of  this  matter  of  brevity,  so  much  affected  by 
Dr.  Flood,  let  me  quote  the  following  from  Father  Gogarty's 
Rejoinder  (p.  89)  : 

The  assertion  so  carelessly  worded  in  the  second  last  sen- 
tence of  this  paragraph  [of  Dr.  Flood's  Reply]  is  sadden- 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  135 

ing,  because  it  is  so  unwarranted.  If  Dr.  Flood  had  only- 
established  this  "  absolute  certainty ",  if  he  could  have 
shown  his  readers  that  all  the  nine  Bishops  of  Munster 
were  absent  from  Clonmel  on  January  22nd,  1539,  he 
would  have  performed  for  Irish  Church  History  the  most 
valuable  service  of  his  life.  But  he  forsook  a  golden  op- 
portunity on  the  specious  plea,  that  the  editors  could  not 
be  expected  to  afford  him  the  space  he  would  need  for 
such  a  full  reply. 

In  reading  Fr.  Gogarty's  Rejoinder,  I  was  struck  with 
the  wonderful  agreement  of  his  strictures  with  those  which 
I  had  to  make  in  the  December  issue,  19 13,  of  the  Records. 
I  had  there  to  call  attention  to  Dr.  Flood's  misquotation, 
positive  assertions  without  proof  or  reference,  extravagant 
use  of  superlative  language,  impeaching  of  Smith's  veracity, 
etc.  And  here,  similarly,  are  points  in  Dr.  Flood's  Reply 
to  which  Fr.  Gogarty  has  had  to  call  attention : : 

[1]  A  singular  looseness  of  argument  is  displayed  in  one 
of  his  proofs  ...   (p.  84). 

[2]  This  is  another  instance  of  a  careless  misuse  of 
authority  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Flood  (p.  84). 

[3]  Hamilton  has  led  Dr.  Flood  astray.  .  .  .  The  learned 
Doctor  would  have  done  well  if  he  had  checked  his 
authority  before  he  used  it  (p.  85). 

[4]  It  is  not  sufficient  [for  Dr.  Flood]  to  impeach  the 
veracity  of  Robert  Ware  (p.  85). 

[5]  Dr.  Flood  roundly  asserts  that  Browne's  Commission 
and  letter  of  1535  have  been  proved  to  be  downright 
forgeries.  He  has  strangely  omitted  to  name  the 
writer  who  has  proved  them  forgeries.  He  quotes  no 
authority  and  he  gives  no  reference  (p.  86). 

[6]  His  [Dr.  Flood's]  language  is  loose.  .  .  .  Besides — 
the  grammatical  structure  of  his  sentence  is  very 
faulty — I  did  not  overlook,  but  I  did  not  mention  the 
fact  that    .    .    .    [because  Fr.  Gogarty]   was  dealing 


136  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

with  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  not  with  his 
predecessors,  and  no  mention  of  the  fact  was  called 
for  (p.  87). 

[7]  I  have  held  that  it  [a  certain  story  or  relation]  is  not 
to  be  cavalierly  rejected  "as  a  barefaced  lie".  I 
wrote  this  because  I  had  read  an  article  by  Dr.  Flood, 
in  which  he  used  these  words  in  describing  this  story. 
I  arrayed  a  long  number  of  facts  to  support  my  con- 
tention, and  Dr.  Flood  has  not  been  able  to  impugn 
a  single  one  of  them.  ...  He  proceeds,  and  his  mis- 
taken judgment  betrays  him  into  assertions  for  which 
he  has  not  the  slightest  grounds.  He  writes  with  an 
astonishing  audacity  "  that  there  is  ample  evidence  to 
prove  "...  He  fails  to  put  his  ample  evidence  on 
record,  and  he  fails  even  to  indicate  the  source  or 
sources  from  which  it  may.be  drawn.  If  he  has  evi- 
dence that  .  .  .  ,  he  knows  more  about  these  pre- 
lates than  any  other  living  writer,  and  he  might  have 
taken  his  readers  into  his  confidence,  and  quoted  his 
authorities,  or  given  his  references,  but  he  has  with- 
held them.  Dr.  Flood  asserts  with  his  usual  force 
that  .  .  .  was  not  at  Clonmel,  but  again  he  can  put 
forward  no  argument  nor  can  he  quote  an  authority 
for  his  statement.  All  these  statements  rest  upon  the 
ipse  dixit  of  Dr.  Flood  (p.  88). 

[8]  I  confess  that  I  cannot  appreciate  the  relevancy  of  a 
single  statement  made  by  Dr.  Flood  in  paragraph  5. 

[9]  .  .  .  the  point  upon  which  I  did  lay  stress  was  that 
three  of  these  four  Bishops  ...  took  oaths  that  were 
satisfactory  to  Henry  as  claiming  the  Supreme  Head- 
ship of  the  Irish  Qiurch.  Dr.  Flood  rather  lightly 
dismisses  these  oaths  and  states  that  the  expressions 
of  fidelity  in  question  "  were  merely  expressions  of 
loyalty,  and  certainly  did  not  imply  supremacy."  I 
shall  ask  my  readers  to  mark  the  word  certainly  while 
they  note  the  following  fact:  .  .  .  the  text  of  the 
oath  sent  over  by  Henry  to  be  taken  by  the  Irish 
Bishops  is  preserved.    .    .    .    The  following  extracts 


A  Fuller  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  Flood's  Reply  137 

will  show  whether  or  not  the  oath  was  a  mere  expres- 
sion of  loyalty,  and  whether  or  not  it  implied  an 
acknowledgment  of  Henry's  spiritual  supremacy : 

"  You  shall  swear  that  you  bear  faith,  truth,  and 
obedience,  all  only  to  God,  to  the  Kings  Majesty, 
your  Sovereign  Lord,  Supreme  Head  on  Earth  under 
God  of  the  Church  of  England  and  Ireland  during  his 
life.  .  .  .  And  you  shall  now  swear  and  protest  that 
you  shall  utterly  forsake,  forego,  and  renounce  all 
manner  title,  claim  or  interest,  that  in  maintaining 
the  bishop  of  Rome's  unlawful,  usurped  power  and 
authority  you  might  have,  pretend  or  allege  in  any 

wise  to  the  said  bishopric  of  N ,  by  any  manner, 

decrees,  canons,  bulls,  or  election,  but  acknowledge 
and  confess  to  have,  and  to  hold  the  same  entirely, 
as  well  the  spiritualities  as  the  temporalities  thereof, 
only  of  the  King's  Majesty  and  Crown  royal  of  this 
realm  immediately  under  Christ,  Supreme  Head  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland,"  etc.,  etc.  (pp.  89, 90). 

I  have  slightly  omitted  from  this  oath,  but  have  left  in 
sufficiently  explicit  testimony  as  to  the  nature  of  the  oath 
which,  Dr.  Flood  declared,  "  certainly  did  not  imply  su- 
premacy ". 

A  much  larger  question  than  the  proper  ascription  of  the 
air  of  our  national  song  appears  to  have  emerged  from  the 
dust  of  our  discussion.  The  question  is  really  one  of  Dr. 
Flood's  psychics  or  mental  processes. 

H.  T.  Henry. 


FINAL  ANSWER  TO  DR.  HENRY'S  REJOINDER.  * 

Let  me  begin  my  answer  by  referring  to  the  bad  taste 
of  Dr.  Henry  in  dragging  in  a  controversy  which  has 
recently  been  appearing  in  the  Irish  Theological  Quar- 
terly (January,  1914).  Of  course,  at  the  time  of  writing, 
Dr.  Henry  had  not  seen  my  Reply  to  Father  Gogarty's 
"Rejoinder",  which  is  in  the  April  issue,  and  he  might 
fairly  have  suspended  his  judgment. x  However,  I  am 
consoled  by  the  fact  that  some  of  the  highest  dignitaries 
in  Ireland  have  written  to  me  congratulating  me  on  my 
defence  of  the  Irish  Bishops  at  a  critical  period  of  Ireland's 
history,  and  giving  me  their  unstinted  praise  for  the 
demolition  of  the  specious  argument  put  forth  by  Fr. 
Gogarty.  My  "impeachment  of  the  veracity"  (!)  of 
Robert  Ware  is  unequivocal,  and  it  is  as  certain  as  day  is 

*[Dr.  Flood's  Final  Answer  includes  misquotations,  misstatements  of 
fact,  and  entirely  new  matter  for  discussion.  It  therefore  goes  beyond 
the  just  limits  of  a  Final  Answer,  and  I  take  the  liberty  of  pointing 
out  these  excesses  and  of  commenting  briefly  in  footnotes. — H.  T. 
Henry.] 

1  [Dr.  Flood  should  have  added  that  the  Quarterly  printed  his  Reply 
and  followed  it  with  Fr.  Gogarty's  Rejoinder,  and  gave  no  intimation 
whatever  that  the  discussion  was  to  be  resumed  three  months  later.  My 
action  is  justified  by  the  April  Quarterly,  which  I  have  now  seen,  and 
which  contains  Dr.  Flood's  attempted  answer  in  the  form  only  of  a 
postscript  (spontaneously  offered  by  Dr.  Flood)  to  a  second  article  con- 
tinuing the  attack  on  Fr.  Gogarty.  Moreover,  in  his  postscript  reply, 
Dr.  Flood  does  not  meet  the  itemized  arraignment  I  quoted  from  Dr. 
Gogarty's  Rejoinder,  but  reasserts  two  of  his  contentions,  proves  neither 
— and  leaves  the  other  items  of  the  indictment  to  the  vague  future 
("At  another  time  I  purpose  to  answer  fully"  is  Dr.  Flood's  tri- 
umphant refutation). —H.] 


Final  Answer  to  Dr.  Henry's  Rejoinder  139 

day  that  the  sole  authority  on  which  Fr.  Gogarty  relied 
for  the  earlier  mission  of  Browne  to  Ireland  is  the  forged 
document  of  the  mendacious  Ware,  the  unworthy  son  of 
Ware  the  eminent  historian.  I  pass  over  Dr.  Henry's 
epithets  regarding  "  Dr.  Flood's  misquotation,  positive 
assertions  without  proof,  extravagant  use  of  superlative 
language,"  etc.  Words,  idle  words.  Like  Father  Gogarty, 
Dr.  Henry  is  still  a  young  man,  and,  as  Cardinal  Newman 
once  wittily  quoted,  "  even  the  youngest  among  us  is 
liable  to  mistakes  .  "     So  much  for  "  L'Envoi.  " 

I  think  it  more  logical,  for  I,  too,  read  a  philosophy 
course  (at  Mount  Melleray  and  All  Hallows),  to  take  up 
Dr.  Henry's  points  seriatim. 

1.  Internal  evidence  shows2  the  Irish  provenance  of 
the  words  of  "Anacreon".  This  statement  I  hold  by. 
I  really  do  not  require  stale  extracts  from  Milton,  or 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  or  Digby,  or  Bailey.  They  are 
quite  familiar  to  me.  I  can  merely  echo  Quousque  tandem, 
etc. 

2.  On  the  question  of  the  structure  of  a  tune  I  fancy 
I  know  quite  as  much  as  Mr.  Sonneck  or  even  Dr.  Henry, 
and  I  feel  satisfied  that  O'Carolan  composed  the  air. 
Just  as  a  trained  architect  can  judge  the  style  of  a  build- 
ing, so  also  a  trained  musician  can  place  the  period  at 
least  of  a  composition ;  it  is  worse  than  puerile  to  con- 
jecture that  O'Carolan  might  have  imitated  the  style  of 
Boyce  or  Arne. 3  I  was  not  aware  that  "  Peaceful  slum- 
bering on  the  ocean  "  was  an  "  Old  English  Song".  It 
was  really  composed  by  Stephen  Storan,  the  son  of  an 

*  [If  Dr.  Flood  has  any  further  "internal  evidence",  why  does  he 
not  gratify  our  eyes  by  a  sight  of  it?  My  "  stale  extracts"  quite  de- 
molished what  he  had  thus  far  offered,  and  in  a  manner  so  complete  as 
not  to  be  devoid  of  a  humorous  feature  (see  present  number  of  the 
Records,  pp.  105-107). — H.] 

3  [A  misstatement  of  fact.  I  nowhere  made  the  conjecture  mentioned 
by  Dr.  Flood.— H.] 


140  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

Italian  fiddler.     As  to  "  Shepherds,  I  have  lost  my  love," 
it  was  composed  by  O'Carolan. 

3.  Dr.  Henry  with  a  childlike  innocence  pretends  not 
to  understand  plain  English.  Surely  he  must  be  aware 
that  in  my  article  contributed  to  Church  Music  when  I 
stated  that  I  had  examined  the  copy  on  which  was 
vouchsafed  the  information  giving  Smith  as  "composer" 
or  "author" — it  matters  little — I  meant  simply  what  was 
printed  on  the  title  page,4  and  the  inference  merely 
amounted  to  the  fact  that  Smith  composed  or  arranged 
the  "setting"  of  a  glee. 

4.  Dr.  Henry  would  fain  rejoice  to  know  that  the  tune 
was  of  Irish  origin,  and  he  says  he  loves  the  land  of  song. 
This  statement  of  his  reminds  me  of  Sheridan's  oft-quoted 
song:  '"Twas  all  very  well  to  dissemble  your  love,  but 
why  did  you  kick  me  downstairs?"5 

5.  When  Dr.  Henry  can  spare  time  he  might  usefully 
employ  it  in  studying  O'Carolan's  compositions,  of  which 
there  are  28  in  such  an  accessible  work  as  Moore's  Irish 
Melodies?     This  would  be  more  profitable  than  to  spread 

4  [A  sort  of  new  idea  introduced  by  Dr.  Flood:  "the  information 
giving  Smith  as  'composer'  or  'author' — it  matters  little".  But 
Smith's  song  did  not  say  "composer";  it  said  "author".  And  in 
1909  Dr.  Flood  interpreted  "author"  to  mean  "composer",  and  de- 
scribed his  interpretation  as  the  "  information  "  given  by  Smith.  Dr. 
Flood  therefore  held  Smith  to  be  the  "  composer  " — and  to-day  he  de- 
nies that  Smith  was  the  "  composer  ". — H.] 

5  [By  the  way,  Dr.  Flood  speaks  (No.  1)  of  "stale  extracts"!  He 
really  discusses  no  point  of  our  previous  argument,  but  consumes  space 
in  personalities,  and  in  irrelevancies  such  as  are  found  in. his  two  closing 
paragraphs.— H.] 

6  [It  is  an  intrusion  of  new  matter  for  Dr.  Flood  to  recommend 
Moore's  Irish  Melodies  for  a  study  of  only  "  28  "  tunes  by  O'Carolan. 
I  therefore  call  his  attention  to  a  fuller— and  an  equally  accessible- 
work,  namely,  ONeill's  Music  of  Ireland.  O'Neill's  work  was  pub- 
lished in  1905— less  than  ten  years  ago— and  contains  75  tunes  by  O'Ca- 
rolan, while  Moore's  has  only  "  28"!  But  neither  Moore's  nor  O'Neill's 
work  can  be  depended  upon  for  correctness  in  the  case  of  O'Carolan's 
tunes.     I  contribute  this  information  freely  to  Dr.  Flood.— H.] 


Final  Answer  to  Dr.  Henry's  Rejoinder  141 

himself  out  in  writing  of  my  methods,  which,  as  a  pro- 
fessor of  Christian  charity,  he  describes  as  "  dishonest ", 
"equivocal",  "devious",  "evasive",7  etc. 

6.  I  leave  my  logic  in  the  hands  of  better  and  more 
expert  authorities  than  Dr.  Henry.  At  some  future  date 
he  will  doubtless  regret  his  intemperate  language.8 

7.  It  is  too  absurd  to  argue  that  Smith  could  not  make 
any  legal  claim9  on  his  own  tune,  if,  as  Dr.  Henry  assumes, 
he  composed  it.  Why  did  he  not  put  forth  his  claim? 
Dr.  Henry  ought  really  get  a  handbook  on  English  copy- 
right law.  Did  Bishop  ever  copyright  his  "  Home,  sweet 
home  "  ?  No,  because  he  did  not  compose  it.  He  merely 
mangled  the  air,  just  as  Smith  did. 

8.  I  leave  my  "bibliographic  learning"  to  scholars. 
Captain  O'Neill  can  inform  Dr.  Henry  that  he  based  his 
own  data  on  my  bibliography.10 

9.  When  I  stated  that  Ralph  Tomlinson  wrote  the 
song  of  "Anacreon"  in  1770  or  1771, 1  meant  the  tinkered 
version ;  because  the  Irish  version  was  written  at  least  20 

7  [Three  misquotations.  Nowhere  have  I  used  the  words  "dishonest," 
"equivocal",  "  evasive,"  which  Dr.  Flood  nevertheless  puts  in  quota- 
tion-marks.— H.] 

8  [I  leave  Dr.  Flood's  logic  in  the  hands  of  the  readers  of  the  Rec- 
ords.—H.] 

9 [A  misstatement  of  fact.  I  never  argued  that  Smith  "could  not 
make  any  legal  claim  on  his  own  tune  ".  My  words  were  :  "  If  Smith 
had  copyright,  he  could  vindicate  it  nowhere  save  in  Great  Britain" 
(Records,  p.  327);  and  in  my  Fuller  Rejoinder  I  phrased  the  thought 
as  "  Smith's  inability  to  urge  any  legal  claim  outside  of  Great  Britain  ". 
If  Dr.  Flood  will  read  some  handbook  on  English  copyright,  he  will 
perceive  that  what  I  said  is  absolutely  correct.  Dr.  Flood,  however, 
contents  himself  with  misrepresenting  what  I  said  and  with  an  added 
sneer  about  a  "  handbook",  and  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  read  any- 
thing about  the  English  copyright  law  existing  in  Smith's  time. — H.] 

10 [New  matter— and  apparently  incorrect;  for  O'Neill  differs  com- 
pletely from  Dr.  Flood  in  the  bibliographical  data  in  question. — H.] 


142  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

years  previously."  It  may  surprise  Dr.  Henry  now  to 
learn  that  "Anacreon"  was  sung  at  Smock  Alley  Theatre, 
Dublin,  on  June  21st,  1762,  by  Mr.  Kear,  as  it  was  pre- 
viously sung  on  November  25th,  1755. "  Probably  Tom- 
linson  tinkered  the  Irish  version,  and  made  it  the  charter 
song  of  the  Anacreontic  Society. 

10.  Let  me  add  that  another  famous  song13  of  the  war 
of  1812-1814,  "The  Constitution  and  the  Guerriere ", 
was  set  to  the  old  Irish  air  of  "Oh  Dandy  O".  The 
origin  of  the  air  has  been  claimed  as  "English"  by 
Louis  C.  Elson,  but  it  is  sufficient  to  mention  that  it  was 
printed  by  a  Scotch  publisher  as  an  "Irish"  air  in  1788, 
and  by  another  Scotch  publisher,  in  his  "Curious  Selec- 
tion of  Fifty  Irish  Airs",  in  1791,  long  before  the  English 
cribbed  it.  I  must,  however,  forgive  Mr.  Elson,  because 
he  frequently  confounds  English  and  Irish;  and,  in  his 
National  Music  of  America,  in  recounting  the  gallantry 
of  Captain  Kane  in  the  harbor  of  Apia,  on  March  15th, 
1889,  he  twice  alludes  to  "the  English  Captain  Kane": 
unaware  that  Captain  Kane,  now  Rear  Admiral  Sir  Henry 
Cory  Kane,  K.  C.  B.,  is  an  Irish  Catholic  (the  son  of 
Sir  Robert  Kane  of  Cork),  a  pupil  of  the  Irish  Vincen- 
tians. 

11  [Entirely  new  matter — and  quite  incorrect.  The  "Anacreon" 
dated  "1770  or  1771  "  by  Dr.  Flood  was  not  a  "tinkered"  version. 
Also,  it  is  incorrect  to  say  there  was  an  Irish  version  "  written  at  least 
20  years  previously",  or  even  one  year  previously,  or  indeed  at  any 
previous  time. — H.] 

12  [Entirely  new  matter — and  quite  incorrect.  The  song  we  are  dis- 
cussing (namely,  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven")  was  not  sung  in  Ireland 
in  the  year  1762,  nor  had  it  been  sung  anywhere  in  1755. — H.] 

13  [The  whole  long  paragraph  is  not  only  entirely  new  matter,  but 
wholly  irrelevant  matter.  Dr.  Flood  really  does  not  love  brevity,  for 
he  consumes  much  space  in  irrelevancies  and  meanwhile  leaves  abso- 
lutely untouched  a  very  large  amount  of  questions  he  should  have  dis- 
cussed (e.  g.,  the  "  things  passed  over",  as  I  point  out  in  my  Fuller 
Rejoinder  (pp.  130,  131). — H.] 


Final  Answer  to  Dr.  Henry's  Rejoinder  143 

11.  I  sincerely  hope  that  the  anniversary  of  "The  Star 
Spangled  Banner"  will  be  fittingly  observed  in  America 
next  September.  Some  Anglomaniacs  aver  that  the  air 
is  "unvocal",  "unsuitable",  etc.,  but  it  is  a  fine  Irish 
air,  and  is  aptly  wedded  to  the  rousing  verses  of  Francis 
Scott  Key.14 

W.  H.  Grattan  Flood. 

P.  S. — It  may  be  well  to  place  on  record  the  fact  that 
"Anacreon"  was  sung  at  Smock  Alley  Theatre,  Dublin, 
on  June  21,  1762  :  the  singer  was  Mr.  Kear  (see  Faulkner 's 
Dublin  Journal  for  contemporary  notice).  A  similarly 
named  air  was  previously  sung  by  Jenny  Wilder  at  Edin- 
burg  on  November  25,  1755.  Unfortunately  my  notes 
do  not  state  definitely  if  the  two  Anacreontic  songs  are 
the  same,  but  it  seems  most  likely  that  the  Smock  Alley 
song  was  what  was  invariably  known  as  the  Anacreontic 
song,  that  is,  the  song  commencing:  "To  Anacreon  in 
Heaven." x* 

14  [The  whole  paragraph  is,  of  course,  irrelevant.  "  It  is  a  fine  Irish 
air,"  says  Dr.  Flood.  If  he  could  only  prove  this  or  if  he  could  only 
furnish  a  probable  basis  for  conjecturing  it,  instead  of  doggedly  assert- 
ing it,  he  would  make  me  his  grateful  debtor. — H.] 

15  [In  saying  that  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven"  was  "invariably 
known  as  the  Anacreontic  Song,"  Dr.  Flood  decides  the  whole  con- 
troversy in  favor  of  John  Stafford  Smith.  For  Smith,  in  the  title-page 
of  his  Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets,  declares  himself  the  author  of  "the 
Anacreontic,  and  other  popular  songs." 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  "  Anacreon"  sung  at  Dublin  in  1762  is  as- 
sumed to  be  the  same  song  as  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven,"  it  is  an 
equally  fair  inference  that  the  "Anacreon"  sung  in  Edinburgh  in 
1755  was  also  the  song  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven."  And  here  the 
humor  of  the  situation  crops  out  once  more  ;  for  now,  as  1755  is  earlier 
than  1762,  we  should  have  to  conclude  that  "  To  Anacreon  in  Heaven" 
is  really  neither  English  nor  Irish,  but  Scottish  ! 

With  respect  to  the  songs  styled  "  Anacreon  "  and  sung  in  the  years 
1755,  1762,  Dr.  Flood  can  not  identify  them  with  the  song  "  To  Anac- 
reon in  Heaven."  The  17th  and  18th  centuries  were  prolific  in  con- 
vivial and  love  songs  following  the  inspiration  of  the  Greek  poet  Anacre- 


144  American  Catholic  Historical  Society 

It  is  also  well  to  note  that  Smith  did  actually  compose 
an  Anacreontic  song  which  he  published  in  1780,  but  the 
air  is  totally  different  from  "To  Anacreon  in  Heaven."16 

Hence  he  could  claim  to  be  the  composer  of  "The 
Anacreontic  "  song,  and  this  is  precisely  what  he  printed 
in  his  Fifth  Book  of  Canzonets,  published  in  1799  (May 
8>  I799-)  But,  be  it  understood  that  Smith's  Anacreontic 
is  not  our  Anacreontic.  There  is  as  much  difference  be- 
tween the  Anacreontic  song  published  by  Smith  in  1780 
and  the  Glee  arangement  of  the  Anacreontic  song  (To 
Anacreon  in  Heaven)  published  in  17993s  there  is  between 
a  blind  Venetian  and  a  Venetian  blind.  We  shall  allow 
Smith  any  eclat  to  be  derived  from  the  former  songs,  but 
most  certainly  not  the  latter. 

It  is  very  significent  that  the  first  printed  verses  of 
"Anacreon"  emanated  from  Rhames  of  Dublin,  while  a 
Dublin  musician  Smollet  Holden,  in  1798  (a  year  before 
Smith  issued  his  Fifth  Book)  arranged  the  air  for  the 
Dublin    Masonic  Orphan  School,    with    new  words    by 

on,  and  borrowing  his  name  for  a  general  descriptive  title.  Thus,  in 
1656,  Cowley's  ' :'  Anacreontiques ;  or  Some  Copies  of  Verses  translated 
out  of  Anacreon  ;"  thus,  in  1706,  Phillips  defines  "  Anacreontick  Verse  " 
as  consisting  of  "  seven  syllables,  without  being  tied  to  a  certain  Law 
of  Quantity  .  .  .  ;"  thus,  in  1749,  in  the  Power  of  Numbers  in  Poetical 
Composition,  "  Anacreontic  Verse"  is  described  as  "usually  divided 
into  stanzas,  each  stanza  containing  four  Lines  which  Rime  alternately." 
In  1785,  Dr.  Arnold  published  a  collection  entitled  :  "  The  Anacreontic 
Songs  for  1,2,  3,  and  4  voices  composed  and  selected  by  Dr.  Arnold 
and  dedicated  to  the  Anacreontic  Society"  (London,  J.  Bland,  1785). 
In  1800,  Tom  Moore,  while  still  a  collegian,  wrote  his  metrical  trans- 
lation of  the  "  Odes  of  Anacreon."  The  18th  century  rejoiced  in  sev- 
eral Anacreontic  Societies.  In  this  flood  of  Anacreontica  how  many 
minor  and  forgotten  versifiers  may  have  written  songs  that  could  briefly 
be  styled  ' '  Anacreon  ' ' ! — H .] 

16  [This  is  not  new  matter,  but  has  so  peculiarly  the  air  of  being  so, 
that  I  venture  to  refer  the  reader  to  my  original  article  in  the  Records 
for  Dec,  1913,  p.  293.,  where  I  speak  of  the  1780  volume  of  Smith's 
in  connection  with  his  1799  volume. — H.] 


Final  Answer  to  Dr.  Henry's  Rejoinder  145 

Brother  Connell,  and  included  it  in  his  Selection  of 
Masonic  Songs  (1798)  of  which  a  second  edition  appeared 
in  1802. I7 

W.  H.  G.  F. 

17  [I  think  it  is  quite  inaccurate  to  describe  the  Rhames  edition  as  the 
"  first  printed  version."  Dr.  Flood  assigns  no  reason  for  his  absolute 
statement,  gives  no  date,  fixes  no  limits  within  which  a  probable  date 
might  even  be  conjectured.  Furthermore,  if  the  "Anacreon"  of 
Rhames,  which  was  published  probably  between  the  years  1775  and  1790, 
is  the  same  as  the  "Anacreon  "  of  the  years  1755,  1762,  it  is  not  easy 
to  conjecture  why  a  song  which  was  sung  at  Edinburgh  in  1755  and  in 
Dublin  in  1762  should  have  had  to  wait  so  long  for  its  first  appearance 
in  print. — H.] 


LIFE  OF  BISHOP  CONWELL 


BY  MARTIN  I.  J.  GRIFFIN. 


CHAPTER  VII 

Opinion  and  Career  of  Dr.  Rico.  The  Bishop's 
partisans  carry  off  the  church  vestments  and 
Vessels.  Meetings  and  further  procedure  of 
the  Trustees  and  Congregation.  The  Church 
closed.  hogan  excommunicated.  consecration 
of  Baltimore  Cathedral. 

Hogan  had  cited  in  his  pamphlets  a  formidable  array 
of  texts  from  the  Canon  law,  to  prove  the  Bishop  in  the 
wrong  for  suspending  him,  and  to  establish  Hogan's  right 
to  continue  as  pastor  of  St.  Mary's.  The  force  of  these 
canons  had  been  questioned  not  only  by  the  Bishop  and 
his  upholders  in  Philadelphia,  but  also,  as  we  have  seem 
by  Bishop  England  of  Charleston.  Hogan's  supporters 
now  set  themselves  to  the  reinforcement  of  his  argument 
by  additional  opinions  from  a  distance.  They  prejudged 
their  own  case  egregiously,  in  the  present  instance,  by 
marshaling  in  their  defence  a  sensational  adventurer,  as 
plain  facts  disclose  him,  although  he  is  pretentiously  de- 
scribed in  the  defensive  pamphlet  of  the  occasion  as  the 
"  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  John  Rico  of  the  Order  of  St.  Francis, 
D.  D.  {sic),  and  Vicar  General  of  the  Armies  of  Spain.  " 
His  opinion,  then,  was  thus  pompously  paraded  on  the 
"  Differences  existing  between  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Conwell 


I    Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N    V 

MT.  JM.  21.  IMS 


— 


4 


n 


